Traveller-digest      Saturday, June 21 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1454



(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
Re: Rule of Man TL (was Re: Anomalies...)
Task System Survey
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller
Re:Hardware, Firmware, Softwar
Re: T4.1 Char Gen Checklist
Re: T4 Task Rationale
Re: T4 skill system
Re: T4 Task Rationale
Trading Traveller stuff...
Re: T4.1 Char Gen Checklist
Re: Roll for Skills
Re: Roll for Skills
Re: T4.1 Char Gen Checklist
Re: Task System Revision
Re: Hardware, firmware, software
Re: T4 Task Rationale
a new take on skills...

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:39:03 +0000
From: "Bill Hopper" <whopper@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale

> From: CardSharks@aol.com
> ...deletia...
> Two medically trained individuals are in an operating room involved in open
> heart surgery. Three (remember that he has Dex 3) has Medical-6; Eleven (Dex
> 11) has Medical-1. A basic task involving surgery (Average difficulty; no
> other modifiers) indicates that Three has an 83% chance of success; Eleven
> has a 100% chance of success. The task is probably suturing up after the
> operation. A different task might be Fixing the Defective Valve (Difficult,
> with modifiers +2 for Good Facilities; +2 for Good Support Team; +2 for Good
> Instruments, and +1 for Experience and Training in this specific procedure):
> Three has 100% chance of success and So does Eleven. More than that, each has
> a 1% chance of Spectacular Success, and each has a 1% chance of Spectacular
> Failure. Eleven, not being a doctor, would probably never attempt the task
> for fear of prosecution (unlicensed practice of medicine) or lawsuits (for
> negligence). If Three dropped over from heart attack himself, then the
> emergency could well dictate that Eleven step in and save the patient's life.
> If that 1% chance of Spectacular Failure doesn't come up, then Eleven looks
> like a hero (and probably gets sent to Medical School).
Marc,

First, I would like to say thanks for discussing this issue with us, 
explaining your reasoning, and allowing us input.  I am convinced 
that T4.1 will be a better game because of it.

Secondly, I would like to say that although I understand your 
rationale, I disagree with it totally.  In both of the cases you 
mention, I think that it is absolutely ridiculous to give attribute 
the same weight as skill.  In the medical example (quoted above), you 
say that a Dex 11 Skill 1 character and a Dex 3 Skill 6 character 
should be able to Fix the Defective Valve equally as well.  I think 
that's crazy! :)  IMO, the skill 1 character should not even be able 
to _find_ the Defective Valve.  He hasn't the training to know what 
he's looking for and no level of Dex can change that.  As a sidebar, 
I also think that the Skill 1 character should have a MUCH greater 
chance of SF in the above task and the Skill 6 character should have 
a much greater chance of SS.

I think that both examples only serve to further illustrate how 
broken the current task system is and how much it needs to be 
revised.

Thanks for listening,
WKH

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 00:48:01 -0400
From: hdhale@siscom.net (Harold Hale)
Subject: Re: Rule of Man TL (was Re: Anomalies...)

I'm back....

Joseph "Chepe" Lockett wrote:

>For my curiousity's sake, Leroy, would you list some of the previous
>references to a high-tech Second Imperium?  I'm more than willing to
>believe you: I just can't for the life of me recall any such.

   So far as I know, there is but one, and it is generally considered
errata.

   First some background for the others...

   If you open up a copy of "The Traveller Book" (copyright GDW, 1982),
which is a sort of compulation of the classic Traveller Books 1-3 with
some other stuff thrown in, you will see on pages 86-87 a tech level
chart showing the tech level that various things appear.  You will note
that under TL 12 there is a listing for "primitive robots" and under TL
17 there is a reference for "self-aware robots".  Later publications,
such as the "MegaTraveller Referee's Companion" use this same chart with
some modifications.  

   "Supplement 10: The Solomani Rim" from the classic Traveller era
talks about the Terran discovery of jump-3, and how that gave them a
decisive advantage in the Interstellar Wars.  We know that jump-3 is a
TL 12 achievement, which fixes the tech level of the Terran
Confederation at TL 12.  This number is confirmed by a number of later
publications.

   No publication has said "the tech level of the Rule of Man was 'x'",
'x' being a number between 12 and whatever.  However, there are some
clues available.  

   The first is in the MegaTraveller Imperial Encyclopedia, which
contains a timeline on pages 6-7 that suggests that the "Terran Navy
uses artificially intelligent robots", the date for this, -2389, is 134
years prior to the end of the last of the Interstellar Wars.  This would
lead one to conclude that the Rule of Man must have had a TL of at least
16, perhaps even 17.

   This is contradicted, however, by at least two other sources.  The
first, "Book 8: Robots", gives the date -2389 as the year "the Terran
Confederation Navy commissioned a line of mass-produced tech level 12
[note: 12 **not** 16] robots as support staff for military personnel". 
This information is later confirmed in the "MegaTraveller Referee's
Companion", which also says, "Less than 200 years later, Naasirka
introduced the first line of robots for private, nonmilitary use. 
Dubbed "Rashush," these housekeeping and valet robots spread rapidly,
thanks to a powerful, high-prestige advertising campaign.  Although
expensive, ownership of these useful robots was within the reach of many
rich citizens of the Second Imperium.  "Rushush" were TL 12 robots, and
this is confirmed in DGP's "101 Robots".

   It's apparent that the reference in the Imperial Encyclopedia to
"artificially intelligent robots" is errata (and there is tons of that
in MegaTraveller's tables and charts), and the TL 12 figure is probably
the correct one.  Certainly Traveller Canon (what is generally accepted
as truth, versus what the publishing company says) places the tech level
of the ROM at 12, with perhaps some worlds verging on or crossing over
to 13.

   As to other evidence regarding the TL of the Rule of Man, I'd want to
see proper citations (publication and page numbers) before I'd believe
that any exists, particularly if it quotes a figure higher than 12 or
13.  In that regard, T4 doesn't count.

Regards,

Harold

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 16:25:54 -0700
From: scharlto@ifsna.com
Subject: Task System Survey

To restate my views into a poll, I say...

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.
RATING = 1 - Stats are given far too much weight vs Skills in T4.1
2.  Spectacular Success and Spectacular Failure are hard to do at easy and
average, and easier at harder levels.
RATING = 3 - SF should be more common as things get harder, and SS  more
common as things get easier.  This reverse bell-curve is not good.
3.  It should be harder to roll SS the harder a task becomes.
RATING = 3 - This is really the same as the above.
4.  Replace SS with SF in 3
RATING = 3 - This is really the same as the above.
5.  I don't like the half-die. Get rid of it.
RATING = 2 - This feels too much like a "I'm different" gimmick, and serves
little useful purpose.

Or, to summarize
1. = 1
2. = 3
3. = 3
4. = 3
5. = 2

As for KBv2.0 vs MT; I was using a modified MT task system before Kenneth's
system was proposed, and I did not want to switch task systems until we saw
what happens to T4.1, so I have not studied the merits of KBv2.0 vs MT.
However, I'm not all that thrilled with a climbing scale of dice quantity
based on difficulty regardless.  Still, KBv2.0 is a large improvement over
T4.0.

Also, I should point out that my group has 6 players (including myself, all
of use at least 6-year Trav veterans) and we have been discussing this
issue.  All of us agree that Skills are MUCH more important than stats.
since I am the only TMLer of the bunch, I thought it only fair to mention
that.

Steve Charlton

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 01:19:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

In a message dated 97-06-21 00:15:36 EDT, you write:

<<  I would recommend that you at least strongly
   consider it (KB systm) and its goals as a starting point for a system
   that you feel more comfortable with. >>

It should be clear that I am CONSIDERING everyting and anything,including
abandoning tasks altogether, reverting to MT, using KB, using the posted
system, using a hybrid, and just throwing up my hands in frustration.

Marc

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 97 05:05:00 GMT 
From: s.johnson107@genie.com
Subject: Re:Hardware, Firmware, Softwar

>>>If you *do* answer this, can we please be careful to avoid any OS wars.
>>
>>Macolytes are Evveeelll!!!  They must be made to embrace the Way of Bill!
>>Just send your paychecks to Redmond WA!!!!
>
>M$ Windoze sucks!!!! Bill Gates is the Antichrist!!!! Microsloth Orafice
>is the work of the devil!!!! Macs RULE!!!!!!
>
>:)

    <SIGH>  Okay, the OS Wars have once again broken out... So who wants to
volunteer to do the Play by Play? <GRIN>

Stephen

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 01:24:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: T4.1 Char Gen Checklist

In a message dated 97-06-21 00:35:57 EDT, you write:

<< 
 And IMO, that's what pushing EDU up so very high and having it count so
 much more than the Skill gains does.
 
 
  >>
A continuing problem is that tasks get abbreviated down to rolling against
Characteristics +Skill. What happened to modifiers... weather, headaches,
tools, really good tools, equipment, teamwork, rehearsal, etc? I have Edu and
Computer but I'm using a 286 and AOL 1.02. What chance of success do I have
regardless of whether I am a grad student? Or conversely, isn't the problem
that anyone who can will pursue an advanced education if they get a chance?

Marc

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 01:30:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale

In a message dated 97-06-21 00:37:47 EDT, you write:

<< examples.  But here's the problem with this system:  there are only 6
 characteristics.  So someone can hit grad school, crank up the EDU, and
 suddenly he's Too Good at Too Many skills.  
 
 Now maybe if you had 12 or 15 characteristics and you evenly distributed
 the skills out over all of them, that problem would go away.  But I'm not
 sure folks want that many characteristics (though I've seen other systems
 with them).  So the next best solution is to decrease the value of
 characteristic compared to the skill.  That's what folks (myself included)
 would like to see.
 
 Make sense?

>>

Sure it makes sense, but Traveller just isn't going to adopt D100's, or 12
characteristics versus the current 6, or etc.

So then, you say decrease trhe value of characteristic versus skill. What is
the current value (in terms of percentage chance of success) for one level of
characteristic? Quantify it.

Then quantify the value of one level of skill.

Then express it as a ratio.

Then we can discuss what the new ratio should be.

But right now, we're just saying characteristics range from 1 to 15 and
skills range from 1 to 6 (and we don't agree on that).

I've run mountains of spreadsheets on the probabilities, and it just doesn't
seem to me to be worth the effort of dividing characteristics by something,
or multiplying skills by something to get different, but not too much
different range ofprobabilities.

Marc

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:27:58 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: T4 skill system

Fri, 20 Jun 1997 20:33:46 -0400 (EDT), Kagehira@aol.com
>      I vote for the Shadowrun system :) At least for me it has the right
>degree of importance between skills and stats.

Actually, I would say that the question people are interested is
which Traveller system (which is why I suggested that I prefered MT)
would be best.

(Otherwise, I might have suggested GURPS.  I did write that GURPS
Traveller article after all :-).

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:32:56 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale

Fri, 20 Jun 97 20:01:56 -0500, eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
>>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.

That's fine.  It just the view that one way is supposedly so much
the obvious way to go that any other approach could be called broken
is what I object to.

>You
>don't, but then what you prefer is just a preference as well.

Quite right.

>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.

True too.

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 2:08:11 CDT
From: Don McKinney <dmckinne@csci.csc.com>
Subject: Trading Traveller stuff...

I've got a copy of Mayday, and a copy of Imperium, that I'm looking to 
trade for some Traveller items I don't have, like Pocket Empires, or
Traveller's Digests #5 and #18 (the two I'm missing), or MTJ #1 and #2
(I have #3/#4).


Thanks,

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: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 07:15:08 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: T4.1 Char Gen Checklist

On Fri, 20 Jun 97 14:04:12 -0500, Eris Reddoch wrote:

> 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!

[stuff about how EDU relates to skills snipped]
 
> To me, EDU does not measure EDUcation, it measures EDUcationability.

The discussion as to what EDU actually *was* was discussed in depth a
few months ago.  Eris, myself, and a number of others seemed to define
EDU as "EDUcationability", otherwise known as "a character's ability
to learn" (possibly including certain miscellaneous knowledge not
specifically covered by skills).  Far more individuals, however, felt
that EDU defined the time spent actually learning, with advanced
education and degrees indicating a higher EDU rating (a view that
seems to have been adopted for T4.1).

Marc, if EDU is going to define one's level or "degree" of education,
fewer skills should use it as their controlling attribute.  I agree
that an individual's exposure to the educational system found at a
college or university could be beneficial for some skills, but EDU is
handed out too generously during character creation and the number of
skills currently linked to it makes it the most powerful character
statistic by far.

If, however, you plan on reducing the number of skills based on EDU, I
do not have a problem with the EDU definition.

James W. Lindsay     Vancouver, British Columbia
  "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"

"Give me the strength to change the things I can,
    the grace to accept the things I cannot,
         and a great big bag of money."

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 97 02:05:57 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Roll for Skills

On 06/21/97 at 12:47 AM,  CardSharks@aol.com said:

>The problem with rolling for skills is the same as the problem of people
>dying during character generation...some people get short changed for no
>real benefit.

>Rolling for skills makes some people come up short for no real benefit.

Marc, have you never worked at something for weeks and ended up with "no
real benefit?" ;-> I know *I* have!  I'd prefer that not happen *too* often
to players, but just like injury a wasted quarter-term might be a
possibility.

I've also had the opposite happen. I've had "breakthroughs" and advanced
more  rapidly in a skill than my usual plodding pace. 

So, my preference is to make the benefit gained variable.  I know that's
not like any previous version of published Traveller, but it is still my
preference.  You advance by only 1 Experience Point (EP) in this skill this
term, next you advance by 3 EP, and next term you are do especially well
and advance by 6 EP.  Eventually, all the EP's are converted into Skill
Points that are used in tasks.  After CharGen ends players continue to
increase EP's which convert over to Skill Points at a 5 to 1 ratio. 


Eris

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

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 97 02:05:57 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Roll for Skills

On 06/21/97 at 12:47 AM,  CardSharks@aol.com said:

>The problem with rolling for skills is the same as the problem of people
>dying during character generation...some people get short changed for no
>real benefit.

>Rolling for skills makes some people come up short for no real benefit.

Marc, have you never worked at something for weeks and ended up with "no
real benefit?" ;-> I know *I* have!  I'd prefer that not happen *too* often
to players, but just like injury a wasted quarter-term might be a
possibility.

I've also had the opposite happen. I've had "breakthroughs" and advanced
more  rapidly in a skill than my usual plodding pace. 

So, my preference is to make the benefit gained variable.  I know that's
not like any previous version of published Traveller, but it is still my
preference.  You advance by only 1 Experience Point (EP) in this skill this
term, next you advance by 3 EP, and next term you are do especially well
and advance by 6 EP.  Eventually, all the EP's are converted into Skill
Points that are used in tasks.  After CharGen ends players continue to
increase EP's which convert over to Skill Points at a 5 to 1 ratio. 


Eris

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

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 97 02:26:31 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: T4.1 Char Gen Checklist

On 06/21/97 at 01:24 AM,  CardSharks@aol.com said:

>A continuing problem is that tasks get abbreviated down to rolling against
>Characteristics +Skill. What happened to modifiers... weather, headaches,
>tools, really good tools, equipment, teamwork, rehearsal, etc? I have Edu
>and Computer but I'm using a 286 and AOL 1.02. What chance of success do I
>have regardless of whether I am a grad student? Or conversely, isn't the
>problem that anyone who can will pursue an advanced education if they get
>a chance?

The way the game stands now, and per your proposal, I'd expect anyone who
could to get an advanced education. Wouldn't you?  

OTOH, for "gaming purposes" there should be alternative roads to the same
level of Target Numbers (Stat and Skill) that don't lead through Graduate
School. In many cases the alternative roads *should* take longer, but (and
here's were we seem to disagree) they shouldn't take 4 or 5 years longer
per skill.  Phil PhD spends 2 terms going through college and grad school,
entering some career 8 years after Andy Average, in those 8 years Andy has
earned 8 skills, but so has Phil and Phil has boosted his EDU to 12 far
above the natural 7 both he and Andy started with. Andy is at 2 or 3 in
several useful skills, but Phil picks up 1's in Andy's best areas during
the next term and outclasses Andy everywhere!  Even if you argue that this
is realistic (I don't), it isn't "game friendly."

The other point you bring up concerns modifiers.  No, we haven't talked
about modifiers too much in our discussions. Maybe we should, most of us
will include them in the calculations, but...well, I haven't because I
thought they would "muddy the waters."   If all sides get the same DM's,
then the DM's sort of cancel out of the discussion.

Eris

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

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 07:29:03 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Task System Revision

On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:25:29 -0400 (EDT), 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.
>  =============================================================
>  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.
>  =============================================================
> 
> 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) and don't be afraid to
> put a zero if you think it isn't important.

Coincidentally, they're *already* listed in order of importance, IMHO.

The stat vs. skill issue needs to be addressed first, followed by the
way SS and SF occur.  As I've stated before, the use of half-dice is
really only an esthetic peeve.  Get rid of them if you can, but get
the *mechanics* working first.  It's not as if including half-dice
make the dice any more difficult to add up... 

James W. Lindsay     Vancouver, British Columbia
  "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"

"Give me the strength to change the things I can,
    the grace to accept the things I cannot,
         and a great big bag of money."

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 00:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Ayers <mark@bbic.com>
Subject: Re: Hardware, firmware, software

win95, 		win nt server, 	redhat linux 4.2
pentium,	cyrix,		486
- ----------
Mark Ayers
Net Admin for the Book and Bean Internet Cafe: <admin@bbic.com>
Traveller Referee for Seattle Metro Gamers  <mark@bbic.com>
- ----------

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 08:11:05 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale

On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:54:39 -0400 (EDT), CardSharks@aol.com wrote:

[snip]

> Consider three characters: Three (with Dex 3); Seven (with an average=
 Dex 7),
> and Eleven (with Dex 11). Eleven has the best aptitude for the skill,=
 but
> without training is unable to safely interact with explosives; Three =
has the
> worst aptitude. All three are selected to attend a class on explosive=
s; all
> three successfully complete the training, and all three receive
> Demolitions-1.

[snip]

> More Training. Three may decide that regardless of his aptitude, he w=
ants to
> be a Demolitions Expert and he pursues nine years of study and practi=
ce and
> eventually reaches the same level of achievement as Eleven (since Dex=
 3+
> Demolitions-9 is the same as Dex 11 and Demolitions-9 when we conside=
r
> Demolitions as a Dexterity based activity). If Eleven made no improve=
ments in
> his skill, and Three made these major improvements, than Three would
> certainly be more of an expert, with more knowledge, theoretical expe=
rience,
> and even practical experience; but when it came to defusing bombs, th=
e Eleven
> (with Demolitions-1) and Three (with Demolitions-9) would be about eq=
ual.

Three's nine extra years studying demolitions will give him something
that Eleven will not gain: confidence and hands-on experience.  It
would be strange that a person that managed *not* to blow himself up
during nine years of training would not also gain a few points of DEX
while he was at it.  It only makes sense.  If statistics can improve,
a person that works with his/her hands all day long should be able to
increase their DEX (or STR).

The way I look at it, the first few skill levels cover the learned
knowledge regarding the subject in question (perhaps 80% basic theory,
20% practicing on cadavers).  The later skill levels (level 4+, for
example) would consist mainly of experience learned on the job (80%
on-the-job experience, %20 from attending lectures and conventions).

IMHO, the measurable difference between two individuals with
drastically different aptitudes (such as Three and Eleven) is no where
near the difference between, say, a veteran surgeon and someone that
just completed a rudimentary industrial first-aid course.

> They might make a good team: Three giving instructions and advice and=
 Eleven
> doing the actual nimble finger work.

This would be fine, except that the task should take at least twice as
long as the two converse over every step.

> Other Skills; Other Aptitudes
> Two medically trained individuals are in an operating room involved i=
n open
> heart surgery. Three (remember that he has Dex 3) has Medical-6; Elev=
en (Dex
> 11) has Medical-1. A basic task involving surgery (Average difficulty=
; no
> other modifiers) indicates that Three has an 83% chance of success; E=
leven
> has a 100% chance of success. The task is probably suturing up after =
the
> operation. A different task might be Fixing the Defective Valve (Diff=
icult,
> with modifiers +2 for Good Facilities; +2 for Good Support Team; +2 f=
or Good
> Instruments, and +1 for Experience and Training in this specific proc=
edure):
> Three has 100% chance of success and So does Eleven. More than that, =
each has
> a 1% chance of Spectacular Success, and each has a 1% chance of Spect=
acular
> Failure. Eleven, not being a doctor, would probably never attempt the=
 task
> for fear of prosecution (unlicensed practice of medicine) or lawsuits=
 (for
> negligence). If Three dropped over from heart attack himself, then th=
e
> emergency could well dictate that Eleven step in and save the patient=
=92s life.
> If that 1% chance of Spectacular Failure doesn=92t come up, then Elev=
en looks
> like a hero (and probably gets sent to Medical School).

I disagree strongly.  Being able to perform an operation with your
good arm tied behind your back and performing strictly by feel does
*not* compare with a "shaky" doctor possessing several years of
schooling & experience... they should /both/ fail!  Three should have
retired to a teaching job while Eleven couldn't possibly know *how* to
perform the procedure with only 1 skill level (which would probably
consist of more basic theory than experience).


James W. Lindsay     Vancouver, British Columbia
  "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"

"Give me the strength to change the things I can,
    the grace to accept the things I cannot,
         and a great big bag of money."

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 3:49:54 CDT
From: Don McKinney <dmckinne@csci.csc.com>
Subject: a new take on skills...

I was thinking about the skill/task issue again tonight, and I realized 
what's missing, and why Marc's examples he keeps posting about STAT
impact are right...

What we have here are Talent and Skill, both as linear numbers...

There's no recognition that no matter how high a skill might be, there's
a "minimum" stat below which the skill actually cannot be performed...

There's also no real impact that both the Talent and Skill impact
curves should be bell-shaped, somehow...

Let's face it - it takes some DEX to be a good Marine, and some STR...
Someone with a 3 in each will be horrible, no matter how skilled he is 
trained...  but at some point, perhaps DEX/STR 7+, or higher, someone with
little skill will definitely OUTPERFORM someone with no skill, and if 
someone has a high skill it will be even more... but, two persons with
high stats and high skils, will do well to score on the other (which is
why Grandmaster-level chess matches require so many games for a decision).

Note - Some would say that Patrick Ewing has a better DEX than Michael
Jordan; but they both have high DEXs, and the true impact is how much more
skilled a player Jordan is than Ewing...  (Please don't flame me if you're
a Ewing fan, ok?) 

How this enters the task system, I have no idea - I would hate having
stat minimums and bell curve mods for each skill.  I want it simple, but
I think Marc's point fits here better than the "STAS Uber Alles" position
T4 took... 


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 = 
============================================================================

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1454
***********************************
