Traveller-digest      Thursday, June 19 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1442



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Skills and Attributes - A CT Hang up?
Re: Anomolies
The Great Task Debate
Re: Plea to Marc Miller...
Re: Anomalies stuff
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
Re: Anyone in Costa Rica who plays Traveller?
Tasks
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
RE:Skills and Attributes - A CT Hang up?
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1439
Re: Task system fix. A unified front is necessary!
The T4.1 Count
Task Vote Quorum Call So Far Day Two
Re: Marc Miller--Please.
Skill advancement in chargen (was Re: Marc Miller-please)
Re: T4.1 Task System Proposal
Re: Task Vote Quorum Call So Far

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 15:22:00 +0100
From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Skills and Attributes - A CT Hang up?

In response to Marc's challenge:

I would prefer a T4 task system which uses as few dice as possible 
(preferably not D3), means that only highly-skilled and/or high stat 
characters can perform the hardest tasks (and then not reliably), and 
is easy to implement.

The MT system is the best I have seen to date, bar none.

I would prefer T4.1 to have a different skill system, closer to CT/MT 
for easy compatibility with old products, but I'm not very 
enthusiastic about KBv2.0, having looked again at the probabilities.


Andy Lilly writes:

> 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.

And, as Ken will doubtless tell you, elements of it have been 
subsumed into T4.

> 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.

I would certainly agree.  What I'm not so sure about is how much I 
want T4 to reflect real life in this respect.  For good roleplayers, 
I think things might be OK - but I suspect that good roleplayers 
don't bother much about task rolls anyway; the (role)play's the thing.
For the hoped-for newcomers, I suspect it will become very 
disheartening when one's character isn't very good at anything much 
because of low stats, a slippery slope to munchkinism IMO.  (Yes, 
that *does* make for good roleplaying, in the end.)


> I think much of the stat/skill incompatibility arises because of people
> still using random generation of skills (from the career tables).

AFAIK this is still the system.   While I might agree that less 
random generation is a good idea, it's not on the (official) agenda, 
and this discussion is about tasks for the existing system, not some 
ideal one.

In other words, we're using the CT chargen system (much improved), 
which works rather well with the CT value assumptions and many people 
seem to feel works less well with T4.x.


> 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.

Again, I agree the RL example is accurate.  However, I believe 
there's a strong link between improving a skill directly and 
improving an associated attribute: you learn to play badminton, your 
eye:hand coordination improves.  (Mine did.)  You can even develop 
the "habit of intelligence" (my phrase) -- part of it is learned 
responses to information, part of it the habit of thinking, and part 
the development of neural pathways during formative years. 


> 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.

Ars Magica is more like 50:50 IMO.  D&D is probably skill based (in 
the sense that skills improve with experience level not stat, and 
improve far more by XP than by stat).



> 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.

Most alternative systems seem to be trying to redefine the difficulty 
classes of T4.x for exactly this reason of compatibility.  The 
minimalist task profiles of PE are exactly suited to this.


> Given the investment already put into T4.1, is it really
> absolutely *critical* to change it?

The game will survive if T4.1 remains as is.  It will be improved if 
the time spent replacing T4.1 is spent on fixing FS.  Or FF&S 2.  Or 
Starships.


Nick


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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 10:34:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ethan Henry <ehenry@mag1.magmacom.com>
Subject: Re: Anomolies

> From: NUELOW@aol.com
> 
> 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.

This is a pretty fine line to walk. A TL 15 gauss rifle isn't a big
deal perhaps, but what about jump-6? I think it just grates on people
in general mostly because of the rather coarse nature of TL ratings.
(Boy, talk about rehashing an old argument...)

The problem is that when you say "They had a TL 14 rifle", you imply
that they had TL 14 and thus, they had jump-5, which of course, they
didn't. Now, I doubt that you meant to make a statement about RoM
jump drive technology by sticking a rifle in your adventure, but in
some ways, that is what you're kind of saying. 

Perhaps I could say it all by saying, "the TL system is a constant
source of grief and complaint for TML members".

> 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.

I don't know if you really need to own or have read "every single
Traveller item ever published". I do not think that owning "Forms & 
Charts" from CT will make you write better adventures. 
 
> 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.

Someone else responded and said it was a "meta-fact" that we had been 
given outside of the narrative description of the Traveller universe.
Well... I dunno. I think I'd have to agree with you, Steve, there's
nothing to stop you from contradicting this in some way to provide
an adventure hook... though, on the other hand, a lot of TML readers
(myself included) get bent out of shape when "canon" gets contradicted.
You lose some, you lose some. ;)

> >> 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."

Hm, well, I don't have my references here at work, but I think it is 
stated fairly clearly, somewhere, that the RoM topped out around TL 12.
(And I don't want to hear the term "Ramshackle Empire" again, you
treacherous Vilani scum - it's the Rule of Man!!!)

> 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.

Did your adventures involve dropping asteroids moving near the speed of light
on a populated world?

Anyways, I was a little surprised when I saw your response Steve -
everyone kept talking like you wern't here. 

Ethan
- -- 
ehenry@magma.ca                                  http://www.magma.ca/~ehenry

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 15:56:25 +0100
From: Simon Turner <madgamer@mistral.co.uk>
Subject: The Great Task Debate

Yet another lurker descends to add his voice.

Ok, heres my 1.5 crimp's

Yes the current system has problems, however the basic concept of
using the number of dice to measure the difficulty is IMHO good.
New players pick up on it quickly. It acts as  a visual cue to the 
difficulty of the task.

More dice = A harder goal. 

BTW Am I the only person on this list who actually owns D3's? 
Someone must make them still, if not, oh well yet another marketing
opportunity for IG!

So where do we go. The system my group of gamers has been using is
 
stat/2 + skill*2 

and to be honest it works fine. To ease gameplay, we have 
just adjusted our various character sheets to show the task DM next 
to the stat/skill. When an injury is taken we alter the stat DM's, as 
needed. There hasn't been any real slowdown of gameplay.

As a side effect, it has solved the other contentious problem of 
high skill levels, but people who hated the half-die <STOP READING NOW>

As the skill is doubled, Half skills become a possibility, perhaps as 
a halfway house indicating a skill being improved. We added this into 
the character generation system. 
Every skill level gained in a skill currently at 3 acted as half a skill 
and voila! Lower overall skill levels. Acheiving high levels of skill
takes perseverance and sacrifice just like 'real life'. 

Finally all players who play PE, you must go and read Machiavelli, 
you won't be disappointed.
- ----------------------------------------------------------
Simon W. Turner     madgamer@mistral.co.uk

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 07:57:29 -0700
From: Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: 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

I sent a private message to "cardsharks@aol.com" (MM) to try to avoid
wasting bandwidth, but what the heck! It looks like the list will be
cluttered with this for days anyway!

My vote is for Kenneth's KBv2.0 or some facsimile thereof which weighs
skills more heavily than attributes and which gets rid of that awful half
die.

Best,

Chris Griffen

===================================================
Keeper of the Flame. Traveller player since 1980.

http://www.cris.com/~Cgriffen/traveller/deneb.shtml




- --------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Griffen                      Phone: (408) 527-7189
Cisco Systems, Inc.                      Fax:   (408) 527-0452
NMBU Technical Publications              cgriffen@cisco.com

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:05:15 +2
From: "RFXn" <mlaakso@utu.fi>
Subject: Re: Anomalies stuff

On 19 Jun 97 at 10:15, Janet and Ron Dawson wrote:

> But who is to say that the adventure cannot be reinterpreted?  I
> tend to share Steve's view on the "facts" of Traveller.  I like a
> more flexible take on facts that allows room for ambiguity and
> differing inerpretations.  The idea of the secret of the ancients as
> being revealed and carved in stone was a big let-down for me, and
> one of the reasons why I preferred TNE to MegaTraveller.  At least
> they reintroduced the unkonwn and ambiguity into the known universe.

	MegaTraveller did that too; if my memory doesn't betray me, the GDW 
campaign Knightfall introduced a new starfaring race, older than the 
Ancients.

	Personally, I have three GOOs (Great Old Ones; spacer terminology). 
The Ancients, The Precursors (as in Knightfall), and the 
Antediluvians (a rimward non-humanoid race, -210,000 ~ -90,000 AD). 
Too much Babylon 5 you say... :)

> - Ron
 
/RFXn     mlaakso@utu.fi        aka. Matti Laakso
 -Phone: +358-(0)2-237 9928       YO-Kyla 19 A 11
 -IRC: RFXn                       FIN-20540  TURKU
 -Talk: RFXn@delenn.yok.utu.fi    Finland

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:22:43 -0400
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

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

Bob Sanders

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:16:05 +2
From: "RFXn" <mlaakso@utu.fi>
Subject: Re: Anyone in Costa Rica who plays Traveller?

On 19 Jun 97 at 12:38, Volker A. Greimann wrote:

> -> Meanwhile, did everyone know there is a Spanish version
> (hardcover) of -> Classic Traveller? Yes, i knew that, although i
> never saw it... Hope it went better than the German version....

	Makes me wonder... The Finnish translation of 2300AD was pretty 
successful, as was Twilight:2000. Maybe Traveller, too? Although 
Finnish gaming scene has been pretty saturated with cyberpunk and 
White Wolf games, a classic SF game might have a niche too.

/RFXn     mlaakso@utu.fi        aka. Matti Laakso
 -Phone: +358-(0)2-237 9928       YO-Kyla 19 A 11
 -IRC: RFXn                       FIN-20540  TURKU
 -Talk: RFXn@delenn.yok.utu.fi    Finland

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 09:25:06 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Tasks

OK, I'll throw in my 2 credits worth.

I think that attributes are overrated in T4.  I don't mind the
multi-dice system (though I'm not as fond of d3) but I think that
skills need to be more important.

That said, you could keep the T4 or T4.x system but have skills
alter _difficulty_, not Target number.

Then the fix is simple.  The trick is to assign tasks properly, IMO,
not what wierd math you decide on to get a target number.

- -Merrick

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 08:31:58 -0700
From: scharlto@ifsna.com
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?


I, too, have to add my support to Kenneths' call for a task system change.
KBv2.0 is a decent suggestion, but is by no means the only approach that
could be taken.  I would be happy with any approach that:
A.  Removed the half die
B.  Gave a significantly greater weight to skill over attribute
C.  (Optional) Did not involve "on the fly" math calculations to determine
success probability.


"vanya" <vanya@partyline.net> said:
>(Why d6's?  There are Six major races, right?  Six sides to a hex, right?
Y
>askodray 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!)

Hmm, why do I have a feeling the Yaskodray = Cthulhu thread is about to
start up again?

Steven Charlton

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 10:39:15 -0500
From: tim Reynolds <tim@valhalla.gpasf.com>
Subject: RE:Skills and Attributes - A CT Hang up?

Andy buts it very well

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).

I agree completly here.  I have learned to use a task whatever way I need.


He who speeks the truth  says 

* 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.

True again.  I have a minor case of CP so my Dex at most is a two ; ) as
well as strength, and from personal experince I know I would love to be a
guitar player and have read many books and can even play a little but no
matter how much I read I ll never be a rocket star.  SO attributes do mean
alot.  If you think that a person's skill is important in a task then give
him positive die modifers or lower the task difficulty its that simple. I ts
just that simple.

 In SUMMARY Andy says 

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?

I never real thought about, I am going back to school and I am going to be
brook for awhile, and I would be real pissed if i would have to spend 30 for
another copy of a book I all ready have.  Boy you will really see some ranting 
then Marc ; )

I want to thank Andy for saying alot of things I couldn't quit say myself.
As far as the Vote goes,  I guess as most of you know, I am  against any
further changes in the rules, I cant afford it.



Tim Reynolds
Strategic Forecasting
504-276-5510(work)
tim@valhalla.gpasf.com(work)
tim@premier.net(home)

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:47:29 -0400
From: Peter or Kevin Miller <pmiller@linkeasy.net>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1439

>Backing For Change(s) are:

Add my name, Peter Miller (pmiller@linkeasy.net) to backing KBV2.0

Thanks,
________________________________________________ Peter J. Miller
Second Base Sports Cards - http://www.dragonfire.net/~pm/kevin/
TravWeb Central - http://www.dragonfire.net/~pm/traveller/

"The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, 
 but queerer than we _can_ suppose"

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 16:35:53 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Task system fix. A unified front is necessary!

> I think that the best way for us to convince MM to fix the Task 
> system is to speak with a unified voice. At the moment, everybody is 
> pushing his pet system(myself not excluded, i admit), but that way, 
> the issue gets diluted.

Exactly.  That's why I haven't been pushing for KBv2.0.  We can work 
out how to fix T4.1 after Marc has agreed to listen to us and fix it 
in the first place.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 16:36:11 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: The T4.1 Count

I downloaded my e-mail today, and I just couldn't believe it.  I 
don't think I've ever seen the TML repond to something this fast nor 
with such universal agreement.

We may not all agree on which way to fix it, but it is painfully 
clear that T4.1 needs to be fixed.

Marc, your challenge was to get 50 backers to change the task system. 
 That request was made just under 22 hours ago.  There are now 41 
people who have voiced an opinion for change.  There are still only 2 
who have supported T4.1 as it is.

It is painfully clear that I do not stand alone.  Now, can we fix 
this thing?

Kenneth.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:19:23 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Task Vote Quorum Call So Far Day Two

Backing For Change(s) are:
- --------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Bearden           <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Alan Huscroft             <A.A.F.Huscroft@reading.ac.uk>
Alex Rebsch               <grazzit@flash.net>
Anders Backman            <anders.backman@aniware.se>
Andrew Akins              <igor@netins.net>
Andy Brick                <exeus@compuserve.com>
Bill Hopper               <whopper@pobox.com>
Bill Prankard             <BPRANKARD@theiia.org>
Brody  Dunn               <brody@intersol.co.nz>
Bruce Alan Macintosh      <bmac@astro.ucla.edu>
Craig Berry               <cberry@cinenet.net>
David J. Golden           <goldendj@pcisys.net>
David P. Summers          <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Don McKinney              <dmckinne@csci.csc.com>
Douglas E. Berry          <dberry@hooked.net>
Eris Reddoch              <eris@pen.net>
Erwin Fritz               <efritz@glja.com>
Evyn MacDude              <wmacdude@concentric.net>
Harry                     <paharris@postoffice.newnham.utas.edu.au>
Ian or Katts              <ianw@zed.com.au>
J.                        <Jonathan@hccm.co.uk>
Jason Anderson            <midnight@kagi.com>
Jerry Sanders             <kalin@bambam.swlink.net>
John R. Snead             <jsnead@netcom.com>
Joseph M. Saul            <jmsaul@us.itd.umich.edu>
Luke Silburn              <SilburnL@logica.com>
Martin F C Pickett        <ceemfcp@cee.hw.ac.uk>
Nick Munn                 <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
P. ENGEBOS                <pengebos@NMSU.Edu>
Rob Dean                  <robdean@access.digex.net>
Roderick Darroch Elliott  <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Sam Thomas                <sinbad@dfw.net>
Scott Ellsworth           <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
SD Mooney                 <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Stephen Johnson           <s.johnson107@genie.com>
Steve Brengard            <maverick@castlegate.net>
timothy collinson         <timothy.collinson@solent.ac.uk>
vanya                     <vanya@partyline.net>
Volker A. Greimann        <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>


Against For Change(s) are:
- -----------------------------------------------------
Allen Shock              <34zbtxq@cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu>
Andy Lilly               <a.s.lilly@nortel.co.uk>
Andrew Vallance          <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>

AS of this moment the vote is:

39 For Change(s)
3  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 11:38:32 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Marc Miller--Please.

Add my vote for a task system that values skills over stats, or at least
makes them equally important. I don't care what system is used, be it KBV,
d66, or something that uses d3's and integrals. If the process doesn't
change, I'll just keep on using house rules in the true Traveller tradition
(and like most, will probably do so anyway <g>); it would just be nice to
see the official rules reflect what many of us feel is closer to reality.

I just know that if you gave Mary Lou Retton and Picasso each a paintbrush,
I know which one I would rather have hanging on my wall.

(Getting back to work now, with visions of Mary Lou hanging on my wall....)

**********************************************************
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: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 12:18:47 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Skill advancement in chargen (was Re: Marc Miller-please)

>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?
>

That sounds like a perfectly good idea, and one I'll start using.

>increase. <---Now the question is does he get a 1 point skill increase or
a *3* point increase? ;->

You are evil, you are. :)

**********************************************************
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: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:42:53 MET
From: "Volker A. Greimann" <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
Subject: Re: T4.1 Task System Proposal

- -> I think that for T4.1 we should scrap the multiple dice system and go back
- -> to the CT/MT 2D
- -> task system. I have never seen why it was abandoned in the first place ; It
- -> works, it's simple
- -> and it does not have any of the annoying problems of either T4 ( 
Hear hear, i want to state the same: MT- Tasks work. Much better than 
anything for T4 i've seen yet. Just my biased opinion!
 
- -> I posted my humble version of an updated MT task system for T4 some weeks
- -> back. I have
- -> playtested it without a hitch ( to no great surprise - after all, it had
- -> worked for MT for years ).
You took the words right out of my mouth! 
Ad Astra,
V.A.G.       
- ------  Volker A. Greimann, also known as: Grei5001@uni-trier.de  ----
- -- Am Weidengraben 86,C6 - 54296 Trier - Germany - T+F: +49651148846 -
- ------- check out: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/4061 --------
- ---- Student of Law, Gamer, Illuminatus Primus, Slayer of Windows95 --

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 09:34:06 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Task Vote Quorum Call So Far

At 01:14 AM 6/19/97 -0500, you wrote:

<excerpt>>21 For Change(s)

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


20, I was counted twice.

<excerpt>

>>>>

You counted Scott Elsworth twice???

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


Perhaps because I have the strength of ten, for my heart is pure?  Or
possibly because I have posted more than once on the topic?  I will use
it as an excuse to post again, and soften my previous stance.


As I said before, I find the current system does not fit my needs, but
that may be more an indication of how we like to play than anything else.
 I roll very rarely for much of anything beyond a general trend in the
results.  We do not use the present task system, but one with more of a
skill weighting might get used.  I do not feel that strongly about it.


What I do feel strongly about is getting a table of equivalencies into
the text - something like Marc already did with the EDU stat.  Telling
people right out that their EDU-8 is the real world equivalent of a HS
diploma is pretty useful.  I liked how Gurps did their stats, with real
world levels next to the numbers.


Let me affirm, BTW, that I do really like the general idea of the task
system, with real world names for the level of difficulty.  My players
have an innate understanding of what it means when something is
"difficult"  I also like the general Traveller skill setup and character
generation, esp. after the revision.  It is only the exact results of
this particular implementation that I have trouble using in play, as it
does not match our own perceptions of the world.


It is worth noting that my players are thinking of moving to a name-based
skill system as well.  They think "Master" or "Apprentice" is more
understandable than 4 or 1.  I cannot really argue with them, but I have
not yet gotten around to doing it.


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

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1442
***********************************
