Traveller-digest      Thursday, June 19 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1445



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Poll:  Task System Choices
Re: Anomalies stuff
Re: Task System Revision
Re: Please please please!
RE: A plea to Marc Miller
Re: Task system Vote
Pocket Empires Technology
Task Vote Quorum Call So Far Day Two Beta
RE: A plea to Marc Miller
RE: Task System Revision
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
Re: Task System Revision
Re: Sector Maps:  Can't Grok PBG
Re: Stuff..
Re: Hardware, firmware, software
Re: Task system Vote
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1437
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 14:33:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com>
Subject: Poll:  Task System Choices

Well, most folks seem to want a task system which empahsizes skills over
stats. 

How about rating the 3 non-T4 Task systems we have available to us, and
lettting Marc and I know which one we like best. 

1) The old MegaTraveller Task system:  

Roll 2D6, and add Stat/5+Skill
Easy = 3+, Average = 7+, Difficult = 11+, Formidable = 15+, 
Impossible = 18+

__  Your Rating of This System (1 = Best to 3 = Worst)

2) KB 1.1  

Add Stat/2 + Skill *2 and roll below this number using differing numbers
of dice: 

Easy = 1D6, Average = 2D6, Difficult = 2D6 + 1D3, Formidable = 3D6,
Staggering = 4D6, and Impossible = 5D6

__  Your Rating of This System (1 = Best to 3 = Worst)

3) KB 2.0

Add Stat + 3*Skill and roll below this number using differing numbers of
dice: 

Easy = 2D6, Average = 3D6, Difficult = 4D6, Formidable = 5D6, 
Staggering = 6D6, and Impossible = 7D6

__  Your Rating of This System (1 = Best to 3 = Worst)

I rate megaTraveller as Best (1), KB1.1 as (2), and KB 2.0 as worst (3)
(But all are IMHO better than the current system). 


- -John Snead jsnead@netcom.com

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:51:38 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: Anomalies stuff

On Thu, 19 Jun 1997, Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:

> I've earlier proposed a way to explain some of this away: To define the TL
> of a planet as the highest TL a large part of the population routinely used,
> but to define the TL of an interstellar realm as its space TL. That way RoM
> _may_ have had some TL 14 stuff (though I also agree that it would be best
> to keep TL 14 relics severely curtailed), but it did _not_, repeat _not_,
> ever, ever build any TL 13 ships. And neither does Sylea until Year 300.

I agree with Hans on this one.  Given the work of DGP on defining TL's, 
where an individual world can range pretty far in terms of the separate 
TL items (land transport, space transport, energy, materials, etc. etc.), 
we know that each world has a range of technologies being produced 
locally.  Maybe they make TL 9 weapons and computers, but their personal 
transportation is stuck at TL 6, for instance.

When you move that out to the Imperium at large, knowing that each world 
has its own range of TL's, and that there are thousands of worlds in the 
Imperium...what TL is the Imperium?

It makes a lot of sense for the interstellar government to define its TL 
primarily by the jump technology in use.  Individual worlds would 
probably be best defined by the average of their various TL's.

So, yeah, there could be a couple of worlds in the Ramshackle Empire that 
had TL 14 personal weapons, armor, and medical equipment.  They wouldn't 
have Jump-5, because the RoM would almost certainly have grabbed that and 
used it for themselves, and thus be TL 14 as well.  But, having a range 
of other higher-tech products available on some (very few) worlds...sure, it 
makes sense to me.


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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 97 16:47:46 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Task System Revision

On 06/19/97 at 04:25 PM,  CardSharks@aol.com said:

>In a message dated 97-06-18 02:16:23 EDT, Dreamer details the following
>problems with the task system:

> 1. 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.

   ( 1 ) Most Important.  Both Stats and Skills are important, but
         neither should completely dominate the other.  Right now, it
         seems Stats are in a dominating position.  

> =============================================================

> 2. Spectacular Success and Spectacular Failure are hard to do at easy
>    and average, and easier at harder levels.
> =============================================================

> 3.  It should be harder to roll SS the harder a task becomes.
> =============================================================

> 4.  Replace SS with SF in 3.

    ( 3 ) Marc, Important.  I think all three of these are
          inter-related, and get the same ranking.  SS's should become
          harder to achieve at harder levels.  SF's should become easier
          to acheive at harder levels.  Frankly, though you could ditch
          SS and SF and it wouldn't bother me too much.  Maybe replace
          the concepts with degrees of success and failure.

> =============================================================

> 5. I don't like the half-die.  Get rid of it.

    ( 2 ) Very Important.  I'd make it a one, personally, but that's
          just my distaste for 1/2 dice.  Go to d10 or d20 and I won't
          complain, but 1/2 a d6 and it sticks in my craw.  Shoot!  I'd
          even accept a d3 (yes, I know what that is, but if the darn
          die was commonly available I wouldn't mind using it too much),
          but not in combination *with* a handful of d6's.  Maybe it's
          not logical, but it's the way I feel.
          
> =============================================================



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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:07:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matrixs@aol.com
Subject: Re: Please please please!

     Look you sqirrely chipmunk, I kept the list.  It says I now have an
invalid address and does'nt provide a solution.  Im going away for a few
months and I dont want 2 billion trav. list mailings to come back to.  So you
can either help me out by leading me in the right direction or providing a
solution, or you can scamper back up your little tree and keep your
critisism's to yourself.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 15:22:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: jwbrewer@ucsd.edu (James W Brewer)
Subject: RE: A plea to Marc Miller

I'm one of the many lurkers who use the list as a resource, but rarely post.
I do agree very strongly that the task system needs to be changed.  While
I'm not wild about Kevin's Kv 2.0 it gives a feel closer to the classic
system.  I feel making the Attribues so dominant is a mistake.  If you plan
to use the straight Attributes the skill range should be raised to same
levels (ie 1 to F).  This would also solve what some think are excessive
skill levels in the Character generation.

                                Jim Brewer

                     James W. Brewer
                     Univ. of Calif. at San Diego

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 15:16:45 -0800
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Task system Vote

Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:46:29 MET, "Volker A. Greimann"
<GREI5001@uni-trier.de>

>So, here i go with a couple of suggestions for the Task System:
>
>1) The system as proposed in the ref's Screen (T4.1)
>2) KBv2.0 (or a close variant)
>3) The MT-Task System (or a close variant (Carlos 3-Based, etc))
>4) Other, to be specified!
>
>
>
>My vote goes to Number 3, btw!

I to would go with a variation on the MegaTraveller system.
There are things about T4 that I don't like, but the 
proposed alternates "fix" things I don't see as broken
and leave things I don't like (like multiple and variable
dice) intact.
______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 17:42:23 +0100
From: John Wood <John@elvw.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Pocket Empires Technology

Kudos to everyone involved in PE!  If we pick nits, it's because PE is a
product well worth our attention - note that everybody is talking about
"improving" it, not "replacing" it (unlike FS).

It seems to me that the sidebar on dividing technology (p.52) could have
picked elements more appropriate to the book.  I had a quick look
through the book to see what was affected by TL:

    Resources Exploitable: Materials Tech.
    Infrastructure limit:  Environment Tech (combination of Energy,
                           Information & Transport)?
    R&D limit:             Research & Development Tech.
    Uplift limit:          Matching element?
    Population Change:     Medical Tech.
    Popularity:            Medical Tech?*
    UMP Attack & Defense:  Military Tech (not mentioned).
    UMP Transport & Jump:  Transport Tech.
    plus various meta-tasks.

    * Popularity is already directly affected by Infrastructure,
      otherwise I'd have included Environment too.

The omission of Miltech seems particularly strange (though I've just
learned here that the authors of Economics & Planetary Development
didn't write the War chapter, so I can see how it happened).

My suggestion: replace Research with Military Tech, then use the
*highest* component TL as the limit for R&D.  Use the categories above
for which element to use in which case (for Environment tech, use a
rounded average of Energy/Info/Transport).

It seems to me that *for a Pocket Empires game*, there is no reason to
divide TL unless it has some game effect.  From a "colour" POV, I'm all
in favour of expansions like the WBH tech profile, but that particular
set doesn't mesh well with PE rules - hence my suggestion above.

An additional rule to help make use of this: if you want to make sure
you improve a particular element, you can use "directed" research and/or
uplift.  If you do this, a roll of 1 for that element is treated as a 2
(i.e., up one level).  However, for any other element, a 6 is treated as
a 5, so no other element can increase by 2 levels.

Comments?  Places I've missed affected by TL?
- -- 
John G. Wood  |  john@elvw.demon.co.uk  |  Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 17:54:56 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Task Vote Quorum Call So Far Day Two Beta

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>
Andy Holzricher           <jhereg@southwind.net>
Bill Hopper               <whopper@pobox.com>
Bill Prankard             <BPRANKARD@theiia.org>
Bob Sanders               <bsanders@amghome.com>
Brody  Dunn               <brody@intersol.co.nz>
Bruce Alan Macintosh      <bmac@astro.ucla.edu>
Carlos Alos-Ferrer        <alos@merlin.fae.ua.es>
Chris Griffen             <cgriffen@cisco.com>
Craig Berry               <cberry@cinenet.net>
David J. Golden           <goldendj@pcisys.net>
David P. Summers          <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Dedly                     <Dedly@aol.com>
Don McKinney              <dmckinne@csci.csc.com>
Douglas E. Berry          <dberry@hooked.net>
Ethan Henry               <ehenry@mag1.magmacom.com>
Eris Reddoch              <eris@pen.net>
Erwin Fritz               <efritz@glja.com>
Evyn MacDude              <wmacdude@concentric.net>
Fred Kiesche              <kieschef@cowen.com>
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>
John Wood                 <John@elvw.demon.co.uk>
Joseph M. Saul            <jmsaul@us.itd.umich.edu>
Luke Silburn              <SilburnL@logica.com>
Martin F C Pickett        <ceemfcp@cee.hw.ac.uk>
Merrick Burkhardt         <merrick@rt66.com>
Mike Lee                  <lee@uansv2.Vanderbilt.Edu>
Nick Munn                 <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
P. ENGEBOS                <pengebos@NMSU.Edu>
Paul D. Owensby           <pauld@athens.net>
Peter or Kevin Miller     <pmiller@linkeasy.net>
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>
Simon Turner              <madgamer@mistral.co.uk>
Stephen Johnson           <s.johnson107@genie.com>
Steven Charlton           <scharlto@ifsna.com>
Steve Brengard            <maverick@castlegate.net>
Thomas Walter Trelenberg  <tomt@scri.fsu.edu>
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>
Tim Reynolds             <tim@valhalla.gpasf.com>


Unclear if they are For or Against
- ------------------------------------------------------
Jeffery M. Miller        <Jeffery.M.Miller@Dartmouth.EDU>

AS of this moment the vote is:

55 For Change(s)
4  Against Change(s)
1  Unclear

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 16:00:18 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: RE: A plea to Marc Miller

Hmmm...I've not weighed in on the task resolution debate, though I do
think that skill is more important than attributes...no way is some with a
high dexterity going to be equally good at surgery and fencing...it'll
help them attain the skills, and natural ability certainly affects one's
ability to learn and use a skill, but the skill, the learning, the muscle
training that goes on is the thing that makes a difference.

Another thing that's astonishing me is the number of hitherto unheard from
lurkers popping out to cast their votes on the issue...

Where are you people the rest of the time?? Sometimes it feels like
there's only about 30 people on this whole list...not bitching, just
wondering...


Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:46:42 -0400
From: maverick@castlegate.net (Steve Brengard)
Subject: RE: Task System Revision

 1. 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.

Rates a 1. Task should be 2/3 based on Skill, 1/3 on Attributes

 =
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
 2. Spectacular Success and Spectacular Failure are hard to do at easy =
and
average, and easier at harder levels.

Rates a 2. Simply makes sense; the harder the task, the harder it is to =
get a SS (easlier to get SF)=09
 =
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
 3.  It should be harder to roll SS the harder a task becomes.

See #2=20
 =
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
 4.  Replace SS with SF in 3.

See #2 =20
 =
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
 5. I don't like the half-die. Get rid of it.

Rates a 3. Simply to odd.=20
 =
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Numbers 2,3 and 4 all cover the same issue and therefore rate the same =
level of importance. If you fix either / or the others will be fixed =
(2,3 and 4)

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Kelly St.clair" <kellys@efn.org>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

I'll keep this short and sweet - I support a changed task system 
  (KBv2 or something similar) in the revised T4.


- ---------------
Kelly St.Clair
kellys@efn.org

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 17:07:53 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Task System Revision

 
>  1. 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.
>  =============================================================

1---kinda.  Skill should really, IMHO, determine how difficult the
task is, then the attribute determines how good you are within a
given skill level.

For example a skill 5 Medic (aka a surgeon) might have dex 6, so
he'd have a target number of 6 on an easy task for simple surgery.

A medic 1 might have dex 15, but he'd have a Staggering task level
on the same operation.  

Using 1d6=Easy, +1d6 for each level that's a TN of 6 on 1d6 for the
surgeon, and a 15 on 5d6 for the medic.  

>  2. Spectacular Success and Spectacular Failure are hard to do at easy and
> average, and easier at harder levels.
>  =============================================================

This makes no sense to me (I need to eat :-)

>  3.  It should be harder to roll SS the harder a task becomes.
>  =============================================================

3

>  4.  Replace SS with SF in 3.
>  =============================================================

2

>  5. I don't like the half-die. Get rid of it.
>  =============================================================

0 (don't care)


- -Merrick

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:04:46 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Sector Maps:  Can't Grok PBG

At 01:45 PM 6/19/97 -0500, you wrote:
>I'm looking at the sector maps in M0/FS and I can't quite grok what the
>PBG column is on the data sheets.
>
>I'm *guessing* that it's
>
>	P	# of Planetary Belts
>	B	# of Asteroid Belts, and
>	G	# of Gas Giants
>
>Am I clueless?

P= Population Modifier  If Pop is 4, and this diget is 6, it means that
60,000 folks live here.

B= Belts, of the planetoid variety.

G= Gas giants.
- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|   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: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:08:16 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Stuff..

At 06:14 AM 1/1/97 -0800, you wrote:

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

Trying to warp the kid for life?

>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.

This is a great idea, and I'm working it into a campaign I'm going to try
and sell to IG (Hint: It involves a Terrapin class ship, and rumors of
another human empire far to Spinward...)

>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? 

I'm going to put up my designs Real Soon Now.. I don't have decent mapping
software yet (saving up for adobe) so the deck plans will have to wait.





- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|   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: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:01:24 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Hardware, firmware, software

At 05:03 PM 6/19/97 +0100, you wrote:

>I was wondering what computers/operating systems people here use?  I've
>seen quite a few mentions of Macs and only a few Unix/Windows/Dos.

I run MS-DOS 6.22 and Win 3.1.  Based on what page count telles me, about
60% of the visitors to my Traveller page use Windows, 35% Macs, and the
other 5% an odd mixture of Linux, Unix, os/2, and the every-popular "other."

>If you *do* answer this, can we please be careful to avoid any OS wars.

Macolytes are Evveeelll!!!  They must be made to embrace the Way of Bill!
Just send your paychecks to Redmond WA!!!!

>My second question is more Traveller-related.  What would you want
>Pocket Empires software to do?  This is a deliberately vague question to
>avoid biasing the response.

Spreadsheets to manage my economy on a year-by-year basis.  I can handle
the long-term planning, but the nuts and bolts I want to leave to the
Chancellor of the EXCELLery.

- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|   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: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:30:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: Ryan Dooley <ryan@coe.missouri.edu>
Subject: Re: Task system Vote

Actually, from house-rules experiences, we like / 5.

- --ryan

+ Ryan Dooley                       * ryan@coe.missouri.edu           +
+ Network / Systems Administrator   * voice: (573) 882-2162           +

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:14:58 GMT
From: Neil McGurk <neil@westmore.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

Well just to have my say, I feel that skills should count for more than 
attributes.  I don't normally have time to send any mail after I've
read the list but this time I feel that I've got to say something.

KBv2.0 may not be the answer but the T4 systen does not work for me.
Marc please change it and drop the half die as well.

Oh for the simple days of CT, not that I would like to see a return to 
a system like that. I've never played or owned MT or TNE so I've no idea if 
those systems worked or not.

Back to lurking.
- -- 
Neil McGurk
Sir William Gascoine's fellowship, 
of Sir Henry Percy Earl of Northumberland's array.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:42:59 -0400
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com> wrote:
>>>
I agree with his points and would like to see a system like his
implemented. I cast my vote for Kenneth's task system.
<<<

Methinks I spoke too soon... 

As the bandwidth on this issue will be going on for months, at least
until Marc responds, I will add some more fuel to the fire.  

I like Kenneth's task system... I seems to work, and would be a good
fix. But a fix only. If I had to pick, change the whole damn thing. 

I do not like rolling more then two dice. Why? Silly reason, Traveller
has always been 2D6. 

Now if we are going to just fix the system, Kenneth's task system does
the job. If we are going to start from scratch... Teak MT, or start
fresh, and lets be done with it! 

No matter what Marc may feel on this subject, the size of the response
is a good indication of how many people feel that the current system is
not working. (So far about 2 people say keep, 30+ fix)

I work with advertising and communications firms around the world. If
one of my clients asked me what should we do, and had data that
indicated this trend, I would recommend to my client: FIX THE SYSTEM
NOW! No matter what line of work you are in, the old adage "the customer
is always right" will still get you far. 

Ken... keep up the good work, you have reflected many of our feelings
over the past few months. 

Marc... do not let Ken's wall of words distract you from the core idea
that rest within... The system needs fixen. 

Now with that bit of fuel... Burn baby burn!

Nuff Said. 

Bob Sanders

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:55:14 -0400
From: "Michael L. Galligan" <teflonkid@voyager.net>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1437

> 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
I whole heartedly, as a GM and player of T4, would like to see KBv2.0
included in any future task system update or revision.  Nothing
personal, it just works good.  TeflonKid out.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:50:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Ayers <mark@bbic.com>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

here is my backing for a change in weight between skill and attribute.
I have my own house rule after having used all traveller task systems
since 1978.

My group has wrestled hard with this one. We like a system where skill
matters. Especially since skills are hard to get in comparison to
generated attributes.

- ----------
Mark Ayers
Net Admin for the Book and Bean Internet Cafe: <admin@bbic.com>
Traveller Referee for Seattle Metro Gamers  <mark@bbic.com>
- ----------

On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 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.
> 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
> 

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1445
***********************************
