Traveller-digest       Friday, June 20 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1447



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

I agree that skills should be more important...
Re: Task System Revision
PBG = *POPULATION*, Belts, GG
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
Re: Task System Revision
Another Task System
Re: Skill's from Stats - An idea under construction
Re: Roll for Skills (was Re: Marc Miller--Please.)
Task Vote Quorum Call So Far Day Two Delta
Re: Freedom of Choice {Long and somewhat rantish....}
Re: This is how to unsubscribe
Re: Skill's from Stats - An idea under construction
Re: T4 Task Rationale

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:37:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin W. Cain)
Subject: I agree that skills should be more important...

I agree (in part) with Kenneth's assertion that the task system (whichever
one you finally decide on) should factor in skill levels *at* *least* as
much as it factors in *attributes*.  Or to put it another way, the
contribution given by the character's skill level, for an average character
(average attributes, average skill levels) should be approximately equal to
the contribution given by the character's attribute.  

For example, let's assume^H^H^H^H^H^H*presume* <grin> that the average Joe
should have a 50% chance of success at an average task (regardless of 
whatever you call the actual level of difficulty :-).  In this case, the
average Joe's skill level should contribute a 25% chance of success, and
his average attribute should likewise contribute a 25% chance of success,
giving a final chance of success of 50% (25 + 25 = 50).  

Whatever task system you choose for T4.1 should agree with this philosophy,
IMO.  

Thank you.  

Franklin W. Cain

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:55:51 -0400
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: Task System Revision

At 16:25 -0400 6/19/97, CardSharks@aol.com wrote:
>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) I think that this is the most important issue.  Personally, I'd like to
see stats:skills weighted at the very minimum 1:2 and preferably 1:3.


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


4) I'm not that excited about SS or SF issues.  I've tweaked KB v2.0 so
that 3 1's is a SS (with more 1's meaning a more spectacular success) and
ditto for 6's for SF's.  I also tend to interpret task rolls so that the
lower the roll the better the job the character did.  And that about works
for me.


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


3) See above.  I don't think this should be implemented if it involves
anything terribly complex and timeconsuming.


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


4) See above.


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


1)  I'm dead-set against the D3 in the task system.  However, I kinda like
using them in rolling damage; my group uses a few FF&S designed weapons
(Famille Spofulam Armaments gauss toys, to be precise), and I think that
the extra die gives a little better resolution in terms of the damage
spectrum.  However, since this won't be a problem for anyone else, please
interpret this as a vote against D3's in general; for most people they
wouldn't add much.


	And for whoever's counting, I use a Mac.

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:55:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin W. Cain)
Subject: PBG = *POPULATION*, Belts, GG

To the previous poster, who said PBG = Planetoid Belts, Asteroid Belts, and
Gas Giants, ... sorry, you're wrong.

PBG = PopMult, #Belts, #GG

Where

PopMult is the Population *Multiplier* 
  (Total Population = PopMult * 10^(UWP PopCode))

#Belts is the number of Planetoid Belts

#GG is the number of Gas Giants

You were almost right.  You missed with the first one.  Please consult CT's
Bk6:Scouts, or one of the main books for MT (I forget exactly which one),
or TNE's core rulebook.  

Franklin

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 23:11:32 -0400
From: "Michael D. Peters" <Letterworks@Comten.com>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

I would like to add my 2 cr to this . While I haven't "played" the T4
task system in a full blown game several prospective players and I have
experimented with the rules in preperation for the start of a campaign.
I have also followed with interrests the discussions on the TML. I
haven't tried KBv2 at all, but I agree with the comments about skills vs
stats, stats are the base that skills build upon and should not count
higher as they appear to in the trial runs we have made. The 1/2 dice
should be junked, a neat idea that doesn't work. Again, this is my own
opinion, but I have always like sytems with the minimuim of dice to
roll. The talk of MT's task system (alas the only version of Traveller
that I DON'T own the rules for!) with a 2 die task system interest me
very much! (If anyone has the time, I would love to see a synopsis of
the system in a private e-mail). At any rate these should be concidered
as my "vote" for revisions in T4.1.

Thanks
Mike Peters
Letterworks@Comten.com

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

Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 20:34:24
From: 2drapers <2drapers@infowest.com>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

If it is not too late, I vote for giving greater weight to skills.  The
current task system encourages players to have a large number of different
skills related to their outstanding stats.  There is less impetus to
specialize.  Because skills are weighted relatively weakly, characters do
not have much incentive to stay in the service.  One of the things that
made CT so unique were the detailed characters.  With a weaker incentive to
re-enlist and the characters being exceptional by virtue of their stats
rather than their skills, T4 moves towards the "14 year old sword-swinger"
RPG tradition.

I still use MT's system, except that the modifyer is stat/4 instead of
stat/5.  It makes sense:  if you have at least minimal ability, you get the
same advantage of skill-1; if you are above average, you get the same
advantage a professional would, etc.  You do not have to add up a hand-full
of dice or do any division (just remember 5,10,15 (or 4,8,12 in my case)).

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:22:23 +0000
From: "Bill Hopper" <whopper@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: Task System Revision

> From:CardSharks@aol.com
>  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.
>  =============================================================
ONE (1) Skills should be more important, especially at higher levels.

>  2. Spectacular Success and Spectacular Failure are hard to do at easy and
> average, and easier at harder levels.
>  =============================================================
THREE (3)

>  3.  It should be harder to roll SS the harder a task becomes.
>  =============================================================
FOUR (4)

>  4.  Replace SS with SF in 3.
>  =============================================================
FIVE (5)

>  5. I don't like the half-die. Get rid of it.
>  =============================================================
TWO (2)

>Since you have voted for a change in the task system to fix it, rate
>each of these items inorder of importance (1=most important)

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 23:28:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin W. Cain)
Subject: Another Task System

How about this?

1) Assign a difficulty level.  
  a) "Easy/Simple":     Target Number = 6.  
  b) "Average/Routine": Target Number = 10.  
  c) "Difficult":       Target Number = 14.  
  d) "Formidable":      Target Number = 18.  
  e) "Staggering":      Target Number = 22.  
  f) "Impossible":      Target Number = 26.  

2) Roll 2d6.  
  a) Add Skill Level.  
  b) Add 1/3 * Attribute (round fractions of 1/3 down and 2/3 up).  

  (I prefer Stat/*3* instead of MT's Stat/*5*.  I've adjusted the Target 
    Numbers appropriately.)  

3) If the adjusted dice roll is equal to or greater than the Target Number, 
  the character succeeds.  If the adjusted dice roll is less that the
  Target Number, the character fails.  

  a) If the adjusted dice roll succeeds by *at least* four points (i.e., it
    succeeds at the next higher level of difficulty), it qualifies as an 
    "Outstanding/Spectacular Success."  

  b) If the adjusted dice roll fails by *at least* four points (i.e., it
    fails at the next lower level of difficulty), it qualifies as a 
    "Catastrophic/Spectacular Failure."  

(Example #1): 

An average Joe (skill level 2, stat 7) rolls 2d6 +2 +2 (for a total of
  2d6+4).  
He rolls a "10+" ("Average/Routine") 26 times out of 36.  
  ("10+" on 2d6+4 = "6+" on 2d6 = (5+6+5+4+3+2+1) / 36 = 26 / 36) 
He rolls a "6+" ("Easy/Simple") all the time.  
He *never* rolls a "22+" ("Impossible").  

(Example #2): 

Super-Joe (skill level 6, stat 15) rolls 2d6 +6 +5 (for a total of 2d6+11).  
He rolls a "10+" (Avg/Rtn) all the time.  
He rolls a "22+" (Impsbl) only *3* times out of 36.  
  ("22+" on 2d6+11 = "11+" on 2d6 = (2+1) / 36 = 3 / 36) 

  (That's a *1/12* chance of success on an "Impossible" task!!! 
    Which is about were it should be!  :-)



I'd appreciate your thoughts on this.  

Franklin

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 97 21:31:06 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Skill's from Stats - An idea under construction

On 1997-06-19 14:51 thus spake Eris Reddoch:

>A logical extention of my original idea is...
>
>How about we drop attributes/characteristics/stats entirely from normal
>task *resolution* and just use skills?  The stats are used to produce
>the skill during CharGen and Experience with something like the
>following:
>

Why Eris! You're reading my mind. Get outta my head Zhodani scum!!!

Seriously, I hope you got my post on my ideas for character =
generation, and the decoupling of skills and attributes. I put a =
table in there based on FUDGE skill levels, but it could be =
theoretically adapted to any task system...

The basics are:

1. Experience Points, (Skill Points, if you prefer) are awarded to =
advance skill levels; during the game, or during character generation.

2. EP cost to advance a skill level depends upon the magnitude of the =
skill's controlling attribute.

3. Task Rolls are rolled against the Skill Level *only*. Exceptions =
would be physical, mental or social tasks requiring no skill. (eg. =
exhaustion rolls vs. END, lifting v. STR, etc.)

>Well, I was afraid the numbers would go up too fast, but it looks like
>they might go up too slowly.  Maybe the *first* (and only the first)
>Gain should receive twice the Stat?  I like the concept behind this
>though.
>
>What do *you* think?

I'm not sure how you want your skill levels to equate to current =
traveller, but =A1ay caramba! Streetwise-7 after 3 increases!? That's =
FAST. I guess it depends on what kind of dice mechanic one comes up =
with.

Your system of advancement is linear, with the rate of advancement =
dependent upon the controlling attribute. High attribute=3Dfast =
advancement.

My system (based on FUDGE's experience section) assumes that =
characters advance at the same rate for the lowest skill levels, =
until a "threshold" corresponding to each's controlling attribute is =
reached. At that point, the low attribute character is penalized.

I guess it's a matter of taste, but chew on this: An average guy and =
a really educated guy go to _basic_ law school. Should one come out =
with a higher skill than the other? Or should both come out with the =
same Law-1 skill?

Now they've advanced a bit, and wish to train for Law-4 for example, =
by going to Harvard. The average guy is in over his head, he's got to =
repeat the year. The really educated chap comes out easily with his =
Law-4.

Here's my suggestion to revise your system, note that I'm rating =
advancement on a similar scale to CT (1=3Dlow skill, 6=3Dreally high =
skill):

First through Nth Gain -- increase skill points (SP) by 3 for each =
roll
                          on the table if skill points < controlling
                          attribute. Otherwise, increase skill points =
by 2.
                          option:  require completion of a
                          skill increase task to determine if you
                          increase skill points, and perhaps by how
                          much.

Skill Level used in task resolution =3D SP/3,d

Record both SP and Skill Level on Character Sheet.

Experience increases skill points (SP), so it takes 3 experience
increases to raise a Skill Level.

Injury (from combat or otherwise) provides -DM's to Skill Levels based
on levels of injury..tbd.

Stats are used for "Stats only" and "Unskilled" Task Resolution

Example:

 Str 3
 Dex 10
 Int 7

 First Term:
   Brawling 1st
   Dance 1st 
   Streetwise 1st
                  Skill
            SP    Level
 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D   =
        
 Brawling    3     1
 Dance       3     1
 Streetwise  3     1
 
 Second Term
  Brawling 2nd
  Streetwise  2nd
  Fast Talk  1st
                  Skill
            SP    Level
 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D   =
        
 Brawling    5      1
 Dance       6      2
 Fast Talk   3      1
 Streetwise  6      2
 
 Third Term
  Brawling 3rd
  Dance  2nd
  Streetwise 3rd
                  Skill
            SP    Level
 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D   =
        
 Brawling    7      2
 Dance       6      2
 Fast Talk   3      1
 Streetwise  9      3


 Fourth Term
  Brawling 4th
  Dance 3rd
  Streetwise 4th
  Fast Talk 2nd
                  Skill
            SP    Level
 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D   =
        
 Brawling     9      3
 Dance        9      3
 Fast Talk    6      2
 Streetwise  11      3


 Fifth Term
  Brawling 5th
  Dance 4th
  Streetwise 5th
                  Skill
            SP    Level
 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D   =
        
 Brawling    11      3
 Dance       12      4
 Fast Talk    6      2
 Streetwise  13      4

So, low Strength limited Brawling advancement by 2 levels, average =
Intelligence limited Streetwise advancement by 1 level, but high =
Dexterity means Dance will only just now be limited, advancement has =
been steady in Dance skill...

PS. I considered making the penalty for advancement beyond Attribute =
capability change as the skill increases, but I'm not convinced =
that's necessary... I'm still mulling it over.


- -- 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Glenn Hoppe =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D\ /--- =
MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Eschew =
Obfuscation =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 97 22:36:54 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Roll for Skills (was Re: Marc Miller--Please.)

On 06/19/97 at 07:48 PM,  "vanya" <vanya@partyline.net> said:

>I just got then T4.1 chargen sheets from MM.  I shall be converting them
>to Task-Based chargen, and posting parts of them to the TML during this
>weekend. 

Thank you! I'll be looking forward to it.

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 23:14:51 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Task Vote Quorum Call So Far Day Two Delta

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>
Brian A. Howard           <Bruadh@dilaup2.sowest.net>
Brody  Dunn               <brody@intersol.co.nz>
Bruce Alan Macintosh      <bmac@astro.ucla.edu>
Bruce Johnson             <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.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 Scott               <Snail@dircon.co.uk>
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>
James W. Brewer           <jwbrewer@popmail.ucsd.edu>
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>
Kelly St.clair            <kellys@efn.org>
Luke Silburn              <SilburnL@logica.com>
Mark Bradley              <MBradley@gwgate.swrcb.ca.gov>
Martin F C Pickett        <ceemfcp@cee.hw.ac.uk>
Merrick Burkhardt         <merrick@rt66.com>
Mike Lee                  <lee@uansv2.Vanderbilt.Edu>
Neil McGurk               <neil@westmore.demon.co.uk>
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>
Phil Rhodes               <Phillip_Rhodes@baylor.edu>
RFXn                      <mlaakso@utu.fi>
Richard Hough             <rdhough@orca.bc.ca>
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>
Victor J. Raymond         <RAYMOND@macalester.edu>
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:

65 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: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:26:34 +1000
From: Jason Anderson <midnight@kagi.com>
Subject: Re: Freedom of Choice {Long and somewhat rantish....}

>*****I think the following might be a solution:
>If it is we the TML that wish the changes to be made then let us be the
>ones to do it.  With Marc's permission I should think that the list can
>develope and post on the Internet its own HOUSE RULES variant.  Gamer's
>outside the internet could continue to use the established system
>without any BUMPS that we might cause by changing the whole system.
>Since it is posted on the internet and we are the ones wanting it WE can
>play HOWEVER WE LIKE.


Brad,

While I think you have a very good point in saying that there is no way for
IG to know what the rest of the world thinks, you are overlooking one minor
aspect - the task system was already going to change in T4.1. Hopefully,
any new system developed for T4.1 will slot in to the existing (revised)
rules with very little modification, just as KBv1.1 and KBv2 do now.

Cheers,
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: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 00:25:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matrixs@aol.com
Subject: Re: This is how to unsubscribe

Thank you Eris. I hate to clutter the list with petty problems like these,
but i'm rather pressed for time----going back to Antarctica in 1 week.

See you when I get back.
Bryan

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 97 23:41:44 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Skill's from Stats - An idea under construction

On 06/19/97 at 09:31 PM,  Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca> said:

>Fifth Term
>  Brawling 5th
>  Dance 4th
>  Streetwise 5th
>                  Skill
>            SP    Level
> ----------------------   
> Brawling    11      3
> Dance       12      4
> Fast Talk    6      2
> Streetwise  13      4

>So, low Strength limited Brawling advancement by 2 levels, average
>Intelligence limited Streetwise advancement by 1 level, but high Dexterity
>means Dance will only just now be limited, advancement has been steady in
>Dance skill...

Glenn,

I see what you're talking about, and it *does* make sense. I still think higher controlling Stats should allow for faster advance even at lower skill levels.  I'll have to think on that.  

I'm still concerned by the levels we're getting here.  The Streetwise 4 our PC has after 5 gains in it is pitifully low as a stand along target number against *any* number of 6 sided dice. 

About the FUDGE material, yes I got it and have been tinkering with it some.  I'm not bringing up things that don't use d6 in this thread though, because of all the "d6-fanatics" here. ;->  


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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 97 23:02:00 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale

Firstly, I great big thank you for allowing us to participate in the 
creative process, and welcoming debate. No matter what decision you make 
with respect to the task system, I'm glad you're willing to discuss the 
reasons behind the decisions -- even if in the end I disagree with them, 
at least I will be aware of the rationale and adjust things in the game I 
run accordingly.


On 1997-06-19 17:54 thus spake Marc Miller:

>A character's six characteristics are a measure of that character's ability
>in a certain area. For example, Strength (Str) is a measure of that
>character's strength: someone with Strength 2 is very weak; someone with
>Strength 12 is very strong. At the same time, the characteristic is a measure
>of that character's aptitude or potential to perform tasks which require
>strength: someone with a high Strength is much more likely to succeed when
>attempting a task which requires Strength.

I understand the rationale. I think many people on this list have a 
problem with that line of reasoning for (mainly) the following reasons:

1. There are more only 6 characteristics, and many skills, therefore high 
characteristics encourage "munchkinism" where characters with high 
characteristics take lots of low level skills and are good at everything, 
from ballet to demolitions to piloting an aircraft.

2. If skills were more relevant than characteristics to the task roll, 
characters roles become more defined. Someone with high astrogation skill 
would be an astrogator, high engineering skill means you're an engineer. 
If characteristics are more important, characters become more bland and 
one-dimensional. Anyone with High EDU is a good engineer, and astrogator, 
and ...

3. The way characters are developed through the Character generation 
charts and tables _imply_ that in the Traveller universe, training is 
more important than natural ability. The task system should reflect this.

The great tragedy, imho, is that the jewel of the traveller game, 
character generation, is tarnished by a task system that lessens the 
value of skills gained during generation.

>The purpose of the Traveller task system and its mix of characteristics and
>skills is provide a means of resolving situations; the details of those
>situations in light of the tasks, skills, and characteristics become the
>basis for the story-telling aspects of Traveller adventures.

Right. I think though, that a certain debate has ensued over what kind of 
story-telling Traveller is. Is it a space-opera style of storytelling, 
where Flash Gordon is good at many different skills by virtue of high 
attributes? Or is it a science-fiction style, where training is paramount 
to success, and young-bucks can only match their elders by years of 
training, not some 4 week correspondence course.

This is where many disagree. I prefer to play a science-fiction style, 
and my view is that characteristics limit skill advancement, they do not 
contribute directly to the success of a task.

Now, this may just be a difference in definition of "Skill". Using your 
rationale, "Three" with Demolitions-1 doesn't have the same skill as 
"Eleven" with Demolitions-1. Although they have the same Demolitions 
Skill Level, "Eleven" is more highly skilled by virtue of his Dexterity.

I prefer a more rigourous definition of "Skill". A Skill-1 person is 
always less skilled than a Skill-3 person who is always less skilled than 
a Skill-6 person. That definition is closer to the Classic Traveller 
ideal: glance at the sheet, see Enginering-6 and say, "Beam me up Scotty!"

That definition means more diversity, and fewer one dimensional 
characters; there can be good pilots who took a few lessons in dance, but 
aren't really great dancers, Einsteins can be great at Physics but never 
could get the hang of Biology, etc...

- ---

Anyways, what I'm more interested in is a good Task description 
"framework" to hang a dice mechanic upon. And from your post earlier this 
year, I'm sure I won't be disappointed. Whether you decide 
characteristics are base, or skills are base, I'm glad there is a 
consistant task format, and difficulty level scale.

We "tinkerers" can then add whatever dice rolling mechanism, and 
characteristic and skill conversion we want onto that.

- -- Glenn Hoppe,
Traveller fanboy.

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

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1447
***********************************
