Traveller-digest       Friday, June 20 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1451



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Rule of Man TL (was Re: Anomalies...)
Task System Revision Poll Results So Far
Task Vote Quorum Call So Far Day Three
RE: Lurkers (Was: RE: A plea to Marc Miller)
(no subject)
re:Hardware, firmware, software
Re: Rule of Man TL
Re: Rule of Man TL (was Re: Anomalies...)
Re: Does anyone have...
Re: Task System Revision
Re: Vote Count
Re: Hardware, firmware, software
Re: Task System Revision
Re: T4.1 Char Gen Checklist
Re: T4 Task Rationale
Well known for his subtlety...
Re: Task System Revision
re: T4 Task Rationale
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
Re: MT or KBv2.0????

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 10:13:34 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Rule of Man TL (was Re: Anomalies...)

At 10:59 PM 6/19/97 -0600, lguatney wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:44:21 +1200
>Andrew Vallance <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz> writes:
>>Subject: Re: Anomalies Annoyance - an end to Starbases and TL14 gear

>>This adventure is a major revision of history. I can live with a
>>TL 13 RoM, hey I even like the idea; but I just can't live with a TL 14
>>one. It just violates too much previous history. For 'Lock and Loot' to
>>work, a major portion of the RoM would have had to achieved a
>>consistant TL 14. This just doesn't fit with previously published
>>material.
>
>I'm sorry, but "previously published material" has _numerous_ references
>to rather _extreme_ tech for the Rule of Man.  Now mind you, I am not
>advocating a uniformly high tech, but I could accept a rather high one
>on the Rimward end (mainly limited to the area of the old TC), and
>occasional disemenation into the coreward areas.

Could you point me to some of the references, please?  I own a significant
fraction of the old CT and MT material, but I do not own all of it.  If
some of these references were in products I did not own, then I well might
have missed them.

Note that Darrians, etc., are a slightly different case, as while they are
perfectly valid sources for goodies, they are a separate political entity.
They are my current mystery men, in fact.  In the M0 area, they are the
boogeymen, as nobody quite knows what they are up to or where they are, and
it is a multiyear trip to get there, so any rumors have a great chance to
expand out of all bounds of rationality.

(I am especially looking for evidence that the RoM made it above TL12,
since that would put it above Sylea, and thus make relic hunting adventures
a valid type of adventure for M0 Syleans.)

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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 12:26:30 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Task System Revision Poll Results So Far

Below is restatement of Marc Miller's poll request, Please give each rating
of 1,2,3,4, or 5.

1 Most Important
5 Least Important
0 Don't Care

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


                                                   | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ------
Bill Hopper        <whopper@pobox.com>               1   3   4   5   2
Bill Prankard      <BPRANKARD@theiia.org>            1   0   0   0   2
Don McKinney       <dmckinne@csci.csc.com>           1   2   3   3   1
Evyn MacDude       <wmacdude@concentric.net>         1   2   0   0   0
Eris Reddoch       <eris@pen.net>                    1   ?   ?   5   2
Martin F C Pickett <ceemfcp@cee.hw.ac.uk>            1   3   3   3   0
Merrick Burkhardt  <merrick@rt66.com>                1   ?   3   2   0
Mike Lee           <lee@uansv2.Vanderbilt.Edu>       1   3   4   5   2
Nick Munn          <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>        1   0   2   0   3
Rob Prior          <Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca> 1   0   3   3   0
Robert Flammang    <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>       0   2   0   0   1
Roderick D. Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>        1   4   3   4   1
Steve Brengard     <maverick@castlegate.net          1   2   2   2   3
vanya              <vanya@partyline.net>             1   ?   ?   ?   5

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 12:26:38 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Task Vote Quorum Call So Far Day Three

Backing For Change(s) are:
- --------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Bearden           <dreamer@brokersys.com>
2drapers                  <2drapers@infowest.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 Holzricher           <jhereg@southwind.net>
Andrew Vallance           <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
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>
Brad Urwiller             <ravyn@ptw.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>
Franklin W. Cain          <fcain@st6000.sct.edu>
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>
James Lindsay             <jlindsay@direct.ca>
Jason Anderson            <midnight@kagi.com>
Jeff & Michelle Norton   <103010.212@compuserve.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 Ayers                <mark@bbic.com>
Mark Bradley              <MBradley@gwgate.swrcb.ca.gov>
Martin F C Pickett        <ceemfcp@cee.hw.ac.uk>
Merrick Burkhardt         <merrick@rt66.com>
Michael L. Galligan       <teflonkid@voyager.net>
Michael D. Peters         <Letterworks@Comten.com>
Mike Lee                  <lee@uansv2.Vanderbilt.Edu>
Neil McGurk               <neil@westmore.demon.co.uk>
Nick Munn                 <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Ola Agren                 <corps@ts.umu.se>
P. ENGEBOS                <pengebos@NMSU.Edu>
Paul D. Owensby           <pauld@athens.net>
Peter Newman              <pnewman@alaska.net>
Patty and Mike            <musashi@pilot.infi.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>
Rob Prior                 <Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca>
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>
VolantZep                 <VolantZep@aol.com>
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>
Phil Kitching            <Philk@btinternet.com>


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

AS of this moment the vote is:
80 For Change(s)
5  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 13:37:00 -0400
From: Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com>
Subject: RE: Lurkers (Was: RE: A plea to Marc Miller)

Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
> 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...

All you have to do is ask, or find a topic that we feel important. But
remember, Lurkers always listen, and never forget. So be careful about
what you say  ;)

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:53:00 -0500
From: "Eric McCormack" <earthshaker@datatek.com>
Subject: (no subject)

unsubscribe traveller
        end

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 18:28:40 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: re:Hardware, firmware, software

John Wood wrote:

>[If this has been discussed before, can some just tell me the results?
> Thanks.]
>
>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.
>
>If you *do* answer this, can we please be careful to avoid any OS wars.

I use a Mac at home (my preference), and sometimes an Atari STe: I have to
use a PC at work (Win3.1/Win95/sometimes WinNT).

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"You may not recall the moment you asked me, but your
invitation was clear. You'll pretend you never met me,
but it's far too late now I'm here." Hogarth/Helmer

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 19:10:25 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Rule of Man TL

Leroy wrote:

>My friends on TML.  I am sorry that I was not here before to "weigh-in"
>on the issue of the RoM tech level.  Here are some comments I have from
>the perspective of researching "just what exactly is in print" on the
>subject at hand.
>
>These came from the Anomalies thread, but I wanted to post under the topic
>of "Rule of Man TL" to catch any specific comments from you all about this
>very specific subject, in which I have a great deal of interest. _Anomalies_
>is not the only place in the record of T4 where this arises, and I don't
>think it will be the last.


Personally, I would argue that the RoM (or at least the Old Earth Union)
reached TL13 (maybe 14) in a limited nature, and the Imperium waited until
588 to annexe it because it was worried about the TL advantage. The state
and nature of the Solomani region, and the wars with the Aslan stopped
Terran domination of the pre-Imperium period. Not to mention a degree of
reticence in meeting those retrograde, backward, conservative Vilani. IMO,
of course.

However, I too own most Traveller stuff published by GDW, DGP and IG, and
can't recall any references to RoM tech being in excess of TL12 *except
for* IG publications. I am not denying that you may be right about the
numerous references, but can you cite some of them to stop me thinking I'm
going mad...

Dom

- ------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com-------
"You may not recall the moment you asked me, but your
invitation was clear. You'll pretend you never met me,
but it's far too late now I'm here." Hogarth/Helmer

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 11:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Rule of Man TL (was Re: Anomalies...)

lguatney@carbon.cudenver.edu (Leroy William Lu Guatney) wrote:

>I'm sorry, but "previously published material" has _numerous_ references
>to rather _extreme_ tech for the Rule of Man.  Now mind you, I am not
>advocating a uniformly high tech, but I could accept a rather high one
>on the Rimward end (mainly limited to the area of the old TC), and
>occasional disemenation into the coreward areas.  Tech 14 anywhere
>coreward of the line between the "thumb" of the Great Rift and the Delphi
>Rift, in the form of relics/artifacts/what-have-you, does not strike me
>as unreasonable.

>References are scattered throughout CT and MT (of which I have 
>everything major that was ever printed) and having them in T4 _is_ 
>consistent, and IMO shows just how well these guys are doing their 
>homework.

I've got most everything too, and I've not noticed such references.  Could
you provide page numbers, and perhaps a few quotes.  Doing so would go a
long way to settling this debate. 

Many Thanks-


- -John Snead jnead@netcom.com

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:03:19 -0600
From: Erwin Fritz <efritz@glja.com>
Subject: Re: Does anyone have...

Douglas wrote:
> 
> the sector information already in CSV, Excel Spreadsheet, Access database,
> or just plain text format?  I am looking at putting this data on my
> computer for future projects, but the thought is a bit...daunting!
> Especially with the idea of putting in all _four_ incarnations for my
> various projects!
> 
> For the IG lurkers (looking for a way to re-sell work already completed) -
> I for one, would be more than happy to shell out some bucks for raw sector
> data that I could manipulate for my campaign!  Burning CDs is
> pretty cheap these days, and the packaging doesn't run that much!

I have the sector information for Spinward Marches (circa 1107) 
in an Access database. I may even have it in an Excel spreadsheet 
too. It's only the main world UWP's, not the extended system 
information.

Is this what you're looking for?

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 15:22:07 -0400
From: Thomas Walter Trelenberg <tomt@scri.fsu.edu>
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.
 =============================================================
 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.
 =============================================================
 5. I don't like the half-die. Get rid of it.
 =============================================================

Ratings in my veiw:

1) 		Most important

2), 3), 4)	Important--the easier the task the higher the prob of 				
		SS (though I don't believe SS should ever be automatic 				--if even
due just to a PC's overconfidence at doing 				things because..."I'm
good"...causes to overlook some 				minute detail)and vice versa for SF
(with automatic --
		any PC trying to beach press their scout ship to impress 			the local
ladies is going to meet with failure (unless 				in 0 or fractional g)

5) 		Don't care.  Sorry to many of my fellow TMLalarians but 
		they don't give me the heebbie-geebbies as they do 				others. 
However, I would also not insist that they 				remain.

My opinions for what their worth....thanks for the bandwidth.

Tom Trelenberg

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:24:35 -0600
From: lguatney@carbon.cudenver.edu (Leroy William Lu Guatney)
Subject: Re: Vote Count

Hi,

   I was watching this process with some amazement.  I have not gotten up
to speed even on what Marc had posted with all of this bandwidth about the
voting.  I would not be surprised to find that I am not alone in this
problem either.

   I was undecided until I passed along the digests to a friend offline
who has more time to read than I do.  He convinced me to go with the T4
task system as is.  He pointed out that people here have suggested that
this is _simply_ a Stats-v-Skills issue, but that the complainer's are
not considering the fact that the T4 system tends to still be stats
oriented in the fact that age is a factor in getting the skills, and as
a result, the skills do come to dominate where appropriate, and the
stats help the younger less-skilled characters.  I like this.

   A problem with voting this way (via TML) is that the number of
responses causes a lot of things to be missed and people may be
discouraged from voting.  Also, why should someone who wants the T4
system the way Marc is doing it vote "to keep what they already have."

  For a vote to mean anything here, the opposing side needs to have
as much encouragement under the knowledge that unless they vote, the
old way will be taken away from them.  I don't consider your 50 votes
to be agreement on anything, and I doubt Marc will either, but I
would rather not speak for him.

  Anyway, you can put an off-line lurker (J.P.) and me (Leroy Guatney)
down for T4 the way it is from Marc.  I would guess, given that I have
not seen an announcement out there that you have convinced Marc, that
for each of us pro-T4 supporters, there are 10 or 20 or 100 more lurking
knowing (hoping) that T4 comes from Marc as outlined, with input from
TML, but being happy that the system is the basic way it is.

For myself and J.P.,


Leroy
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Science Adventure
                                                        in the Far Future

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 21:00:45 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Hardware, firmware, software

Pentium, Win 95.

I'd prefer PE software as an Excel spreadsheet, but C++ code sounds 
good - I can always convert that to Delphi if I really want!

Simon

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 16:12:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: VolantZep@aol.com
Subject: Re: Task System Revision

In a message dated 97-06-20 06:42:31 EDT, you write:

<< 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***
  =============================================================
  2. Spectacular Success and Spectacular Failure are hard to do at easy and
 average, and easier at harder levels.     ***2***
  =============================================================
  3.  It should be harder to roll SS the harder a task becomes.     ***2***
  =============================================================
  4.  Replace SS with SF in 3.  ***2***
  =============================================================
  5. I don't like the half-die. Get rid of it.   ***3***
  ============================================================= >>


I obviously think 2,3 and 4 are intertwined.  They are equally important if
the task system is going to function properly.  I would edit 4 to with "It
should be easier to roll SF the harder a task becomes".  I'm in favor of
replacing half-die, but it isn't critical.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 97 14:04:12 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: T4.1 Char Gen Checklist

On 06/20/97 at 09:21 AM,  jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay) said:

>> Pursuing an ED8 certificate increases your Edu to 8.
>> Going to an Academy will increase it to 9.
>> Going to Univeristy gets you an A.
>> Grad School gets you a B.
>> Honors gets you+1 Edu.

>Another *gold star* for Marc Miller!  This is great!  And it makes perfect
>sense!

Marc, 

I was thinking about the way you want to handle education last night, and
it reinforces my thinking that Stats are going to play too strong a role in
Target Numbers.

Jo graduates from to Grad School with honors and now has a guaranteed EDU
of 12.  For whatever reason her skills earned in school were concentrated
in Performance and the Social Sciences (Major:  Fine Art, Minor:  Liberal
Arts).  Jo makes a major life change and enlists in the Merchants and in
her next term learns Mechanics, Astrogation, Demolitions (Marc's example),
and Broker and *starts* with a 13 ON ALL FOUR!  As a comparison, her
crewmate Bob (Edu 8..college graduate) has been working his butt off for 4
years after graduating to learn Demolitions, and he's only gotten up to 12! 
Jo, after one "year" of study is better than Bob after 4 "years."  Why? 
Because she graduated with honors with a degree in Fine Arts?  <g> I
wouldn't buy this even if her degree was in Engineering..a choice that
should be included, btw.

Should Jo's high education play a role in her learning new skills quickly? 
IMO, yes, it should, but not a 4 level advantage, and not in *every* EDU
based skill!

Should a PhD, with honors, allow Jo to learn in one year what it took a
college graduate five years to learn?  IMO, only in the field in which she
got the PhD, otherwise *no*, it should not!

Should it allow Jo to become an instant expert in dozens of fields? IMO,
no, it should not!

Finally, should every PC that graduates from grad school with honors end up
with EDU-12?  No! No! NO!  

Marc, the other Stats have similar problems, but EDU is the one that
bothers me most, because it's the one that potentially increases most
during CharGen, and it's the one that unbalances the game the most.  

I see the Stats as fundamental characteristics of the character that form
the *base* for skills.  They shouldn't change as easily (if at all), and
certainly not by as much as skills.  They should measure innate attributes
of the character not fixed amounts of something...like years of schooling. 
To me, EDU does not measure EDUcation, it measures EDUcationability.

Having a high EDU should make it easier to successfully enroll in and
complete college and graduate school.  I can even see where successfully
completing a 4 year program *might* increase an EDUcationability stat by
+1, but I might reserve that as the benefit for the honors graduate.  I
*can't* see it conferring a magic "instant expert" status on every
graduate.

And IMO, that's what pushing EDU up so very high and having it count so
much more than the Skill gains does.


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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Ayers <mark@bbic.com>
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale

Good job Glenn. I couldn't have said it better.

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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:22:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Well known for his subtlety...

> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:41:22 -0400 (EDT)
> From: VolantZep@aol.com
> 
> BTW Marc, I think its absolutely FANTASTIC that you are willing to take the
> time for personal attention to this issue (that I know Kenneth has secretly
> wanted), and many of the others as well.  

ROFL!  I'm surprised my mail client didn't crash on finding 'Kenneth' and
'secretly' in the same sentence.  Kenneth has all the secrecy of a nuclear
bomb going off next door -- and trust me, I mean that in a *good* way. :)

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   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: Fri, 20 Jun 97 21:32:43 +0100
From: David Scott <Snail@dircon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Task System Revision

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

1 - 1
2 - 0
3 - 0
4 - 0
5 - 2

David

mailto:Snail@dircon.co.uk
http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~snail/

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:26:23 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: re: T4 Task Rationale

Marc,

everyone agrees that both apptitude and training are important; no-one (or
almost no-one) wants to have a system that ignores attributes completely.
What most of us disagree about is how much weight to give to each. In current T4, being one of the
top 10% in natural ability (attribute B+) with minimal training (skill 1) 
makes you *better* than an average human (attribute 7) with many years of
intensive training (skill 4.) 

I'm a bright chap (probably INT A-C, EDU D) with a little computer programming
experience (Computer-1.) I don't think I'm better at doing computer tasks
than an average human with even a BSc in computing, though; I couldn't debug
C++ without significantly more pracitce - I don't even *know* C++.

It's bad purely from a gaming standpoint, too, because all good characters end
up looking alike; instead of being a good pilot or a good marksman or 
a good surgeon, your character is either high DEX - and therefore good at
all three - or low DEX and not very good at any of them. Very bland.


Bruce

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 97 17:17:00 -0500
From: jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN)
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

  In light of the debate over task systems, I think maybe it's
  time to pitch my pennies...

  (1)  I like the idea of a task system.  If nothing else, it
  provides a tool for me, as a referee, to avoid those irksome
  "fiat" decisions that my players growl about.  I think it does
  more, however, in providing guidelines for those people who
  are "working outside their experience" to have some way of
  comparing at least the relative difficulties of two tasks.

  (2)  The present task system is clearly counter-intuitive.  It
  gives too much weight to the characteristic, which I read as
  indicating the "natural ability" of a character to master
  related skills.  That may sound like support for the present
  task system; it's not - while natural ability will almost
  certainly affect how easily I _acquire_ or _increase_ a skill
  (up to a point), the skill level itself is more important in
  completing a task.  As an example, I have a naturally high
  INT, EDU, and DEX; my father's INT and EDU are comparable to
  mine, but he's a klutz.  I have auto-repair 1; I can spot when
  a gasket is leaking, I can put fluids into the car, and I can
  unstick some of the mechanical linkages that are easily
  visible and accessible.  My father has auto-repair 3 (or
  better); he can also change filters, replace belts, and do
  just about anything that doesn't require removing the engine
  from the car or using tools beyond wrenches and screwdrivers.
  He'll drop tools and parts, and spend twice the time working
  that I would (for a comparable job that we can both do), but
  he can succeed at more jobs than I can.  His superior skill is
  more important to the job than my superior DEX.  That's how
  real life works; so too should the Traveller task system.

  (3) I strongly urge you to consider a task system that
  increases the weight of skills relative to characteristics; to
  do otherwise will result in the perception of yet another
  "broken" incarnation of Traveller.  I have used KBv2.0 in some
  adventures; I have had no complaints about the results
  generated.  Ken has thought out his task system well; if there
  is something undesirable about it that would prevent you from
  adopting it, I would recommend that you at least strongly
  consider it and its goals as a starting point for a system
  that you feel more comfortable with.

==========================================================================
Jeff Zeitlin                                      jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com
- ---
  OLXWin 1.00b  Recent studies show that recent studies are meaningless.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:32:23 -0800
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: MT or KBv2.0????

Tue, 17 Jun 1997 06:54:17 +0000, "Kenneth Bearden"
<dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
>Total number of people who posted advocating a task system change to 
>date:  68

>Total number of people who did not advocate a system, but just want 
>the thing changed to emphasize skills more:  35

>Total number of people (out of the 33 remaining) who advocate using 
>the MT system or some variant of it:  7
>Total number of people who endorse KBv2.0:  26

>I just thought that it was interesting, given the traffic lately on 
>the MT task system, that KBv2.0 is endorsed by a 3:1 margin over the 
>MT task system.

Um no.  You system was endorsed by 3:1 _by_those_who_want
skills_emphasized_more_.  (Hardly surpising since that is
the primary point of the system).  You cut out 1/2 of your
posts from your count because they didn't advocate count
skills more and many of them (like me) are people who
don't have a problem with stats vs skills but do prefer
MT for reason like "don't like variable dice".
______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1451
***********************************
