Traveller-digest       Friday, June 20 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1452



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: T4 Task Rationale
Birthdays
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1443
Traveller vote...
Yet more task stuff.
Re: ...and now for something completely different...
Re: Vote Count
Re: Hardware, firmware, software
Task Vote Quorum Call So Far Day Three Delta
Task System Revision Poll Results So Far II
ancients
T4 skill system
Re: Birthdays
Re: T4 Task Rationale
Rules changes
Re: T4 Task Rationale
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
Re: Yet more task stuff.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:48:05 -0800
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale

Fri, 20 Jun 1997 07:03:04 -0700 (MST), Bruce Johnson
<johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
[Regarding both skills and stats being important....]
> Hmmm...this is exactly the place where all the people who think that the
> task system is broken point to, Marc.

The problem I have is that when this preference (and it is a perfernce)
get's elevated to the point where a system that doesn't follow it is
called "broken".  The history of demphasizing stats has biased the
views here toward skill, but in gaming in general there is not clear
that the opinion that stats should count for more is even in the
majority.
 
> There is no way on the Emperors green Sylea that someone with skill-9 in
> something should be merely equal to someone with skill-1, I don't care
> WHAT their aptitude is!

And a lot of people would say that someone who is that stupid, clutzy
will never even go into the field and if they do, they will never
amount to anything.  

> particularly for something as demanding as demolitions.
> Getting that skill-9 involves three things: Practice, practice, practice.
> Ok, maybe four things, we'll toss in a little practice. Three may be
> really bad at basketball, can't juggle one ball at a time, and drop his
> food in his lap all the time, but in the real world he's going to
> outperform Eleven almost every time at demolitions related tasks, if not
> every time.

If you take someone who can't even eat a meal without knocking
a glass over, he is _never_ going to be able to safely get into
demolisions and will alway be a danger, no matter how much he
pratices. (Every field for which safety is an issue has stories
about guys that have been there for _years_ and have always been
a hazard to those around them.)  Conversely, the oldtime of
mediocre ability resenting the young talent that is displacing
him is a staple of literature because it reflects reality.

> To take up our tired Mikey example from the great task wars debate,
> Michael Jordan CLEARLY has the aptitude to play basketball, he's one of
> the best in the world at it, maybe one of the best of all time. But,
> according to your example, when Mike was in high school, at about skill 1,
> he'd be able to beat the majority of NBA players and almost all NCAA
> players, because of his attributes.

Um no.  Because all those playes all have high stats too.  The ones
with 3's all never played basketball except when they had to in gym
(and then Michael Jordan _could_ run rings around them even before
he was trained...)

> No way...Age and Skill will beat Youth
> and Talent any time.

And others are just as clear that it's the opposite....
______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 15:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Birthdays

> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:52:51 PST
> From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
> 
> Here's one that's a bit more complex, but gives a *flatter* distribution:
> 
> roll dice 3 times:
> 1st 	(1d6-1) * 61	(0,61,122,183,244,305)
> 2nd	(1d6-1) * 10	(0,10,20,30,40,50)
> 3rd	2d6-1		(1-11) 
> 
> Add the results of the 3 rolls. If the total is 366 and it isn't a leap
> year, change it to 365.
> 
> Simple, more even, fewer dice, and no re-rolls. It's also
> "progressive". The first roll determines what part of the year, the
> second determines where in that part, and the final roll gets the exact
> day.

"Tonight on Weird Unsolved Mysteries:  Six times as many babies are born
on day 6 of each year than on day 1, six times more on day 77 than on day
72...why?  Scientists are baffled, and there are hints of an Imperial
cover-up..."

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   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 1997 18:03:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Keebler863@aol.com
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1443

unsubscribe

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 17:14:55 CDT
From: Don McKinney <dmckinne@csci.csc.com>
Subject: Traveller vote...

You have me (actually, not dmckinne, but "dmcinne") voting for T4.1,
when other lists have me voting for KBv2.0...

[Don McKinney, please...]

I voted with KBv2.0, and please mark me that way. Note that I actually
prefer MT, but don't think the switch to the DGP-created Task system
is likely at this date...

DonM.
- --
============================================================================
= Donald E. McKinney, Senior CM Specialist,           (217) 351-8250 x2365 = 
= Computer Sciences Corporation, Champaign, IL       dmckinne@csci.csc.com =
= Winter War XXV Convention Chairman, Champaign, IL, February 6-8, 1998    =
= dmckinne@prairienet.org or winterwar@prairienet.org       (217) 469-9917 = 
============================================================================

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:16:58 +0100
From: Simon Turner <madgamer@mistral.co.uk>
Subject: Yet more task stuff.

Its nice to see so much reasoned debate going on.

Just a few more thoughts on what I think would help any task system finally
adopted:

1. Can the basis behind the whole system be explained in one paragraph,
better still one sentence. 

This may seem a little spurious, but is the essence of good design. If the
system cannot be explained and understood easily , it will probably lead to
problems later.

2. Can the *whole* system exist on a one page reference sheet or better still,
the back of a postcard. Lookup tables should be restricted to one and at
most two.

I tend to go with the ditch the rulebook - play from reference sheet
approach in my games. Lookup tables can be a pain as they slow gameflow.
Whatever you do make it memorable! The half dice - love it or hate it - you
didn't forget it.

3. The target number should be calculated and declared *before* the player
rolls the dice.

This is a major aid to game flow. There is nothing worse than fiddling
around after a roll with + and - DM's while the player waits for the the
result. 

Interestingly enough getting below a number works well, although it can seem
counter intuitive at first, in that you *count until you bust* - I find the
too many dice arguement a bit spurious in this regard  - I find in actual
sustained play you pick out rolls high to low in turn and check for busting.
My players have adapted to this quickly and developed a 'feel' for the roll
they have just made. Counting three or four dice is no major hassle On the
*very* odd occasion an impossible task comes up - more dice adds to the tension.

I leave judgements on how the current systems on offer do under these criteria
to your discretion. I would just like to add that I think the T4 task system 
was a *flawed* masterpiece. Its just so close to being my perfect system....








- ----------------------------------------------------------
Simon W. Turner     madgamer@mistral.co.uk

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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 15:40:15 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: ...and now for something completely different...

At 07:48 AM 6/20/97 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>
>	Does anybody have a clue as to the origins of the term "Munchkin"
>as used to describe annoying roleplayers?  Does anyone know the name of the
>person who first screamed "You [expletive deleted]...  [expletive
>deleted]... umm... MUNCHKIN!!" and in what circumstances he did so?

The origin I heard goes back to an AD&D touney at an early GenCon, where
the PCs were dropped in Oz.  Turned into the predictible blood bath, with
mounds of dead munchkins all over the place.  The term grew out of that.

Note that the above is rumor and lore only, and I don't have any evidence
for or against it.


- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|   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: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 18:40:39 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Vote Count

At 01:24 PM 6/20/97 -0600, (Leroy William Lu Guatney) wrote:
>Snip<
>   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."
>
Leroy, 

I believe that you must have missed to initial letter, Marc Miller stated
that he did not feel that anyone else wanted the Task System changed, and
that if out the 300+ members of the TML, if 50 people would say that they
wanted the task system changed., hi might reconsider it. So actually Marc
was only interested in the number of people that wanted change(s). I set
that up so we could see how were for change or against. 

If in you opinion the against did not vote, it matters little to the
original statement by Marc. 

I see no problem with the voting to turn out, so far it has been remarkable
all sort and kinds of Lurkers have been deLurking. I not seen some of the
Lurkers ever post anything ever since I have been here, as for the silent
majority being silent, it looks like a large chunk have become unsilent.

>  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.

See the above comments it was not a vote us versus them just how many want
change(s).

>  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.

I have added you name to the against area, but I can not add J.P. in would
not be a good idea to vote off-line friends it could easily run into many
problems/issues. As it stands now one vote one email address taken from
email headers.

The vote is not about pro T4 vs Anti T4 just how many want change(s) in the
task system. I am the one that set the quorum format, not Marc. I only did
it to see how many were against and would vote so.

Now that the votes supporting change(s) has met Marc's minimum, the hard
part will deciding what change(s) will/can be implemented. Even if Marc
does not choose to implement any of the task suggestions, I will be able to
fine tune the task system I am using form all of the dialog.


- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(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 19:00:48 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Hardware, firmware, software

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

I use a 486 "I going thru getting the upgrade parts", and Winblows 95.<g>

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

I would like it to import/read Excel or Database files containing sector
information. Then to take all of the die rolling out of the loop for me.
That way I can just apply the results.


- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
(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 19:02:19 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Task Vote Quorum Call So Far Day Three Delta

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>
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>
Jason Davies              <obiwan@thenet.co.uk>
Jeff & Michelle Norton    <103010.212@compuserve.com>
JEFF ZEITLIN              <jeff.zeitlin@execnet.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>
Leroy William Lu Guatney <lguatney@carbon.cudenver.edu>
Phil Kitching            <Philk@btinternet.com>
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:
82 For Change(s)
6  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 19:03:48 -0500
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Task System Revision Poll Results So Far II

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
David Scott        <Snail@dircon.co.uk>              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
Mark Ayers         <mark@bbic.com>                   1   0   1   0   1
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
Sam Thomas         <Sinbad@dfw.net>                  1   2   3   3   1
Thomas W. Trelenberg <tomt@scri.fsu.edu>             1   2?  2?  2?  0
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 20:28:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kagehira@aol.com
Subject: ancients

     Well considering all the talk of ancients lately, I decided to do a
quick update of my site with some Grandfather background, so some of the
'facts' tossed around could be corrected (for instance he didn't necessarily
have 420 children, he had 20 and they had about 20, so the exact number is
not known, however he did supposedly kill them all, but than thats what he
thinks, one never knows). It's still missing a few minor things and
defiinitely ain't cleaned up yet, but....

members.aol.com/kagekiha/traveller/index.htm

Bryan Borich

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 20:33:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kagehira@aol.com
Subject: T4 skill system

      I vote for the Shadowrun system :) At least for me it has the right
degree of importance between skills and stats.

     But actually if I did use the T4 system, I'd prefer more a balance
between skills and attributes. One thing I see ifrom the examples given over
the past year that I might go for, is that the system stays as is for
physical based skills, but that in the case of mental based skills, stats
count for half.  :)

Bryan Borich

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 97 20:09:23 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Birthdays

On 06/20/97 at 03:01 PM,  Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net> said:

> Here's one that's a bit more complex, but gives a *flatter* distribution:
>> 
>> roll dice 3 times:
>> 1st 	(1d6-1) * 61	(0,61,122,183,244,305)
>> 2nd	(1d6-1) * 10	(0,10,20,30,40,50)
>> 3rd	2d6-1		(1-11) 
>> 

Can I ask an impertinent question?  

Why? <g>

Why, do you need a formula or even a table to come up with a birthday? If
it's manual, just say.."Pick a number between 1 and 366 for your PC's date
of birth.", and if it's computerized, like a spreadsheet or program, just
have the computer pick a pseudo-random number from 1 to 366.

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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 97 20:01:56 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale

On 06/20/97 at 02:48 PM,  "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu> said:

>[Regarding both skills and stats being important....]
>> Hmmm...this is exactly the place where all the people who think that the
>> task system is broken point to, Marc.

>The problem I have is that when this preference (and it is a perfernce)
>get's elevated to the point where a system that doesn't follow it is
>called "broken".  

David, it may be a preference, but it is one that many of us share. You
don't, but then what you prefer is just a preference as well.  I think all
of us would like our preferences to be reflected in T4.1, many of us will
be disappointed. Frankly, I *know* Marc isn't going to give me the exact
system I want, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't tell him what I like and
don't like. And it doesn't mean you shouldn't either.  

>The history of demphasizing stats has biased the views here toward skill, 

Perhaps, but that is the long experience we have had with Traveller
showing. Traveller started with almost complete emphasis on skills in CT,
then allowed 1/5 of the stat into the task with MT, and only started to be
"stat heavy" with TNE and T4. 

>but in gaming in general there is not clear that the
>opinion that stats should count for more is even in the
>majority.

Could you reword that for me, please?  I'm not sure what you mean.


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

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 11:08:55 +0930 (CST)
From: David Sarkies <oedipus@student.adelaide.edu.au>
Subject: Rules changes

Just to add my opinion to this discussion

I get extremely annoyed when a game company decides to upgrade a system to
make it more "user friendly". I agree that it has its benefits, but from
the discussion that I have only glanced over because I do not play T4 (I
play TNE) I have noticed that there is a great disatisfaction with the
rules.

If a new version is released then make sure that this new version is
acceptable. When T$R rereleased AD&D 2nd edition in a new set of rule
books I was extremely annoyed because it meant that I was going to have to
fork out heaps of more money just to keep up with the products coming out
and the $100 odd that I spent on the previous books went to waste.

I do understand that extenuating situations mean that rules do have to be
revised and re-released. The dissatisfaction with the T4 task system seems
to be one of those situations. If the task system is fixed then PLEASE
make sure that you do not need to change the rules systems again. It is
just a waste of time and money on both the consumer and the producer.

May the grace and peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all
David Sarkies

- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Apollo ordained my fate ... but the hand that struck my eyes were mine
alone." Oedipus Tyrannos
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 20:43:32 -0500
From: "vanya" <vanya@partyline.net>
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale

> From: Bruce Alan Macintosh <bmac@astro.ucla.edu>

> 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 just rolled a Spectacular Success here.  This is the *real* reason to
weigh skills more than stats.  With only six stats dominating the game, we
divide all characters into six classes (Str based, Dex bases, etc).  A char
with high dex and low str will never attempt to learn certain skills, but
his player will become the a good marksman, forger, pilot etc based on a
large stat and minimal skill level.  

Skills are one of the largest factor differentiating characters in
Traveller.  To allow stats to complete dominate turns the game into D&D in
space, with STR-class chars instead of fighters, INT-class chars instead of
mages, etc.

Skills are what makes a character different.

- -Vanya                                         UPP-8D9B85
Traveller ---------------- Science Fiction Adventure in the Far Future
Meyers-Briggs personality type:ENTJ          | vanya@partyline.net
"...the ENTJ is not one to be trifled with." | dmoody@bridge.com

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 21:45:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Larry Hadley <lhadley@peterboro.net>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

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.

> 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.

   I'm with Ken --

    The T4 task system is horribly broken, and needs to be badly
overhauled.

    Several points need to be considered.

1) Ease of use - the task system needs to be simple enough to keep the
action moving. This may mean sticking to good ol' d6s. (Traditionalists
will demand this)

2) Adequate realism - suspension of disbelief needs some support; IMO
provision for "automatic" tasks, as well as luck being a factor with
unskilled characters (few "impossible" tasks), is *absolutely* necessary.

3) I like the idea of a generic task system that only happens to be
used for combat, with a minimum of specialized rules. *Realistic*
auto-fire and area fire *must* be implemented, even if only as an optional
rule. Give automatic weapons and shotguns more to do than just shred
individual targets...

4) In combat, factors such as shock and individual mindset/experience
mean more than physical damage -- rethink the damage system to take this
into account. New secondary attributes or "skills" such as cool (Tw2000)
or morale may be necessary.

- -- DLH                                 lhadley@peterboro.net

http://text.peterboro.net/~lhadley/Profile.html

  "Fight to fly, fly to fight, fight to win." - TOPGUN motto.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 20:38:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: Yet more task stuff.

On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, Simon Turner wrote:

> 1. Can the basis behind the whole system be explained in one paragraph,
> better still one sentence. 
<snip>
> 2. Can the *whole* system exist on a one page reference sheet or better still,
> the back of a postcard. Lookup tables should be restricted to one and at
> most two.
<snip>

Simon, what you say above is so very, very important, that I couldn't let 
it go by without responding.  The task system should be an elegant design 
- - simple yet robust.  I don't give a hang which system is used, so long 
as it works and is simple.

When programming anything non-trivial, there will always be a few hot 
spots where the program is spending most of its time.  Good programmers 
optimize those hot-spots more than anything else, because if you shave 
even a microsecond off of each iteration, you'll end up saving people a 
lot of time, as the program iterates on that spot so frequently.

In gaming, task systems are the hot spots.  That's the part of the mechanics 
that we spend the most of our time on.  It just makes good sense to keep 
it simple.

The CT non-system was a nightmare.  The only reason I like it is because 
I'm used to it - it's comfortable.  It's my favorite pair of old, 
beat-up sneakers. :)  But I wouldn't want to inflict it on any new 
customers.

The original DGP task system was pretty close to ideal, except that the 
progression of target numbers wasn't as easy to remember as it could have 
been.  Then they added several pages of exceptions to the rules, and 
thereby made it more difficult to use.  It was robust, and simpler than 
CT's sytem, but not even close to being simple enough.

T4's task system fit the bill in terms of simplicity, but missed the mark 
in terms of robustness.  It's pretty hard to fail at tasks under T4's 
system, so it misses the point of having a task system.  There are dodges 
around that, including Ken Bearden's systems, breaking down tasks into 
mini-tasks and requiring a roll for each, and over-using the Multiple 
Actions Rule, but each of those tosses simplicity in favor of 
robustness.  Again, it misses the mark.

T4.1's task system is a bit less simple than the one in T4 (it's 
progression is no longer smooth), but it does a better job of handling 
the probabilities.  It's also a heck of a lot better stated than it was 
in the T4 rulebook.  It is a better compromise, IMO, than the various 
fixes to T4's sytem outlined above, but it still misses the mark.  It's 
not simple enough, and it's not robust enough to be perfect.

Given the choice of any of the above, I'd pick the system Marc has 
developed for T4.1.  

Given absolute power over all things Traveller, though, I'd search for
something even better.  But the down side to that is making the Game
Screen, Pocket Empires, and Psionic Institutes confusing as heck to those
who purchase T4.1. 

I don't see a good way out at this point.  


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

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1452
***********************************
