Traveller-digest      Saturday, June 21 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1456



(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: Chargen
PE Walkthrough Log
RE:Yet more task stuff
Skills vs. Attributes
Re: Minimum TL for...
Re: Task System 4.1...
Re: Birthdays
Re: Birthdays
Re: Spanish version of CT
Tasks and Spec Succ
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1452
Re: Minimum TL for...
Re: T4.1 Chargen: Increasing Skill points
Re: T4 Task Rationale
Re: Hardware, firmware, software
re: T4 Task Rationale
Re: T4.1 Char Gen Checklist
Re: Technology demonstrators
Re: T4.1 Char Gen Checklist
Re: Rule of Man TL

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 13:18:12 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale

David P. Summers wrote:

>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.

IIRC attributes influence the entry into certain careers. If you don't have
the skill for the job, you get unemployed. Natural aptitude does help, but
raw talent will not overcome training and skill in most cases. A skill
level of, say, three indicates a certain minimum standard of performance
IMO. The dominance of attribute over skill in T4 means that this minimum
standard is not consistent between characters.

Effectively, the spread in the target number due to attribute means that a
skill-3, stat 10 character is twice as good as a skill 3 stat 7, because
their attribute difference accounts for a 100% of the skill value. I do not
believe that this is realistic, or playable. Skills cease to be absolutes
and the GM has to generate high stat NPCs to oppose the players. The whole
generation process looses it's attraction.

In addition, the attraction is to power game the stats and fiddle the
rolls. The attraction of CT and MT to me (I won't comment on TNE as I
haven't read it in a year) is that a character with a lousy, honestly
rolled, UPP can become valuable through training and aquisition of skills
from a career, something that T4 throws away.

We (presumptous of me to assume I'm arguing the same point as Bruce) aren't
arguing that attributes shouldn't influence target numbers, just that
skills should be weighted more highly.

Dom (who looks back at the above and wonders if he has unwittingly napalmed
someone by getting all het up. Not the intention, especially after the May
flamefest).

I

- ------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: 21 Jun 1997 14:44:13 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Re: Chargen

Could some kind soul email me RTF versions of the chargen rules?

I run Word 4.0 on a Macintosh.  I have access to 5.0 on a Mac (but it runs
_slowly_ on my old machine).  

Many thanks in advance...

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 07:48:36 +0000
From: "Suzette C. Dollar" <suzd@pop.goodnet.com>
Subject: PE Walkthrough Log

Greetings!

I just mailed out the PE Walkthrough log to all the requests that I 
had (including those sent directly to Stu). If you requested the log 
but have not received it, or if you didn't request it but want one, 
please email me at suzd@goodnet.com.

Suz


Suzette C. Dollar
#Traveller Channel Manager
suzd@goodnet.com

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 16:00:23 +0100
From: Simon Turner <madgamer@mistral.co.uk>
Subject: RE:Yet more task stuff

On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 Joseph E. Walsh wrote

>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.

I couldn't agree more - my initial post was really just a reminder that its
the *practical application* of whatever system that is used that counts. Its
a bit like designing a sports car with all the trimmings when what you
really needed was a reliable station wagon.

>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.

I too come from the early CT, AD&D etc.. generation.
<OLD CODGER MODE ON>
In my day and age we had reams of rules and modifiers and tables on every
possible occurance and we jolly well put up with them. Young folk today,
don't know there born.
<OLD CODGER MODE OFF>
I think we remember the old systems with such fondness because they were
*FUN*. For me, I still get a kick from rolling a twenty or trying to follow
the rules in 'The Mountain Enviroment'

>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.

I must agree with this, my players always had a problem with this system.
As a referee *I* liked it, they disliked it. However to be fair it was the
first task based system we tried. 

>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.
><Snip>
>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.
><Snip>

I agree 4.1 is on the right track, although not Nirvana.

>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 will repeat again, I think the current system and its revisions are on the
right path. Just a few steps away from enlightenment.

Given absolute power over all things Traveller, hmmmmm, now theres a whole
wish fufilment thread.

Well here goes, I would like to go to an alternative universe where DGP got
to finish all the promised products (i.e. The rest of the alien books, the
black duke, the omnesium quest, etc.....) Also i would have loved to have
seen the GDW products Flashback (in the back of COACC) and Rebels Tales
(Back of Fighting Ships). Any others with wishes out there..........

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

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

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

Date: 21 Jun 1997 15:04:05 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Skills vs. Attributes

The real objection I have to rating attributes equally with skills is mainly a
matter of game balance.  After all, the Babylon Project rates them equally,
and I like that ruleset.  However, the Babyon Project gives everyone the same
_total_ for attributes, so that on average no character is disadvantaged. 
This stops munchkinism dead in its tracks!

In Space 1889 I always use the "split the numbers from 1 to 6 between your
attributes" system, so that everyplayer is really good at something and
really bad at something else, and I find it makes for better teamwork, even
with 12-year-olds.

What about doing the same thing with Traveller?  That is, leave the task
rules as-they-are, but change the chargen rules to make attributes balanced? 
(Or throw in an alternate system that balances them.)

Marc is right, we also need a simple, standard way to account for
environmental influences on a task.  I've already suggested dividing the
attribute by the number of simulataneous tasks and/or distractions, which
would tend to eliminate pilot chatter during critical refueling operations
:-)

Does anyone have any more suggestions for this?

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 08:40:34 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Minimum TL for...

On Sat, 21 Jun 1997 s.johnson107@genie.com wrote:

>     Question for the engineers on the list.  What's the absolute minimum level
> of technology required to get airships able to carry a crew and some cargo into
> the air?  I'm thinking of putting together an adventure on a world where below
> a certain altitude the oxygen toxicity kills you.  This would restrict the
> population to the mountain tops and I want to make the tech level as low as
> possible.
>     So what's required to get an airship off the ground and keep it moving
> through the air?  Thoughts, comments, suggestions and References all welcome!

The basic principles of a hot air balloon are really low
tech...Historically the hot air balloon was invented in the 1700's, but
the principle was used in toys and tricks far, far earlier than that.

In theory, you could have a TL-1 or 2 hot air balloon. It would be at the
mercy of the winds, and if you're living on mountaintops, that will be a
large factor.

Powered airships were invented at TL-4,5 or so here, and are dependednt on
the invention of light, powerful powersources for the propellors, and the
isolation of hydrogen (easy) or helium (harder). The isolation of
hydrogen is in turn dependent on the use of electricity (Gad I feel like
James Burke ;-), which again started in the TL-3,4 18th century,
here. Electricity helps, too, because that's the only way to get aluminum,
which is prebably an essential element for airship construction, although
composite materials could be developed earlier. Modern composites are more
dependent on the advances of chemistry, and less on a big industrial
infrastructure than are lightweight alloys...metalwork always needs bigger
machines than chemistry does. 

A few advances in organic chemistry occuring
a little earlier, and the great organic chem 'explosion' of the 1800's
could have pretty easily occurred a century or more before; all it would
have taken is some of the earlier intellectual advances to happen earlier,
perhaps, by, saaay, the Arab world spreading farther and becomng more
dominant, undercutting the heavy hand of the Church, or that China be
considerably less isolationist.

Lightweight, powerful engines are the limiting factor, I would think,
since they would take the greatest amount of industrial infrastructure

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 12:34:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: Task System 4.1...

In a message dated 97-06-21 05:35:20 EDT, you write:

<< 
 My only complaint: I stand by the argument that a Dex 7 Medical-4 doctor
 should beat a Dex 11 Medical-1 EMT...the balance needs to be shifted a bit
 towards making skills more important.
 
  >>
I agree a Dex 7 Med-4 Doctor should beat a Dex-11 Med-1 EMT. But at what?
Suturing?... must doctors use the Med-1's or so to do that anyway. Open Heart
Surgery?... aside from the legal ramifications, what difference is there
between using the Dex-11 guy for the very steady work (which is why doctors
tried out a robot something or other a few years ago... to get that Dex-11
they didn't personally have).(or why there is a team in the operating room).

Dex 11 gives the EMT an 18% chance of success (Difficult Task Default Skill);
Med-1 adds 73% to his chance of success. (If Char/3, the chances are 4% and
+5%)

Dex 7 gives the Doctor 4% chance of success; Med-1 gives the doctor +39%
chance of success, and the total of Med-1 through 4 gives him +78% chance of
success. (If Char/3, the chances are 1%, +3%, and +28%).

I suppose some of this depends on the definition of Difficult task. Under T4
or T41, these guys succeed 90% of the time or so. Under Char/3, they succeed
99% (EMT) or 29% (Doctor). 

Is your argument that the chance of success (in this case, these characters,
this situation, Difficult task) about 1/3?

What if the Characteristic for the task is Int? Then you have the classic
conflict that we see in ER every week... Int-7 Med-4 Doctor argues with
Int-11 Med-1 EMT. The doctor knows he's right because he's a doctor... the
EMT just knows the answer. Make than an opposed task and they can argue about
which treatment to give the patient.

Marc

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 12:49:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: Birthdays

In a message dated 97-06-21 10:59:04 EDT, you write:

<< > Can I ask an impertinent question?
 > 
 > Why? <g>
  >>

For most (or many, or some) of you on the list, you know how to do birthdays,
and do them or don't as you feel at the moment. The Birthday table is for the
12-16 year olds new to the game who don't know what to do. It's my job as
game designer to give some direction to the new players. For a while my draft
said "pick a birthday" and they floundered about how to do it, or they just
didn't.

Marc

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 12:50:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: Birthdays

In a message dated 97-06-21 10:59:04 EDT, you write:

<< 
 If you randomly determine birthday this means that of two identical 38
 year old veterans 1 may be 38 years and 0 days old while another is 38
 years and 364 days old.  This is neither plausible nor fair to the
 player of the older charecter, who will have to make aging rolls sooner.
 
  >>
What's fair. They have different characteristics, and skills. I remember
people in 4th grade with an age range separating them of almost a year. Its
role-playing.

Marc

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 12:52:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: Spanish version of CT

In a message dated 97-06-21 11:11:36 EDT, you write:

<< 
 Yes, I live in the states. Orlando, Florida to be precise.  The FLGS there 
 is a huge monopolistic store called Enterprise 1701 (they have basicaly shut

 all the smaller FLGS's down, and been around for almost 20 years IIRC.)  I 
 believe they do some international ordering.  They have a website with lotsa

 information.
 
 www.enterprise1701.com
 
 The price I am not sure of, probably pretty cheap.  This was in the 
 used/bargan/want-to sell-this-thing-bad section of the store :-)
 
  >>
I remember when Beth in the front office at GDW tried to sell Spanish CTs to
game stores in Florida because there was a spanish speaking population there.
She sold them to stores, but they never seem to have sold beyond that.

Marc
 

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 13:03:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Tasks and Spec Succ

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

The T41 task system I posted called for SS if the dice came out all 1's and
SF if the dice came out all 6's.

That was criticized, and I changed to to SS if 3 1's and SF if 3 3's. Its
going to be one or the other. Frankly, 3 1's makes the game more exciting,
with about a 1% chance at 2.5D and 0.5% at 3D 4D and 5D.


Marc

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 13:29:36 -0400
From: Peter or Kevin Miller <pmiller@linkeasy.net>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1452

Hello,

>============================================================= 
>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.
>=============================================================

I'd give this a 4

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

I'd give this a 5

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

Id give this a 2

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

I'd give this a 5

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

I'd give this a 1

Thanks,
________________________________________________ Peter J. Miller
Second Base Sports Cards - http://www.dragonfire.net/~pm/kevin/
TravWeb Central - http://www.dragonfire.net/~pm/traveller/

"The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, 
 but queerer than we _can_ suppose"

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 19:11:30 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Minimum TL for...

> So what's required to get an airship off the ground and keep it moving
> through the air?  Thoughts, comments, suggestions and References
> all welcome!

Zeppelins, and similar lighter than air ships are the way to go.  TL 5 is 
easily justified, probably TL 4 if you want to look at earth history:

1852: first powered flight of 30 km from Paris to Trappes using a hydrogen 
filled bag 43 m long x 12 m diameter, powerd by Henri Giffard's "light 
weight" steam engine which weighed 160 kg.

There were numerous other powered airship experiments culminating in the 
first Zeppelin in 1900.  Later Zeppelins entered passenger service in 1912, 
becoming the worlds first commercial airline.  During the 1930's you could 
travel across the atlantic by airship.

If your world is a regressed colony, I would reckon that steam driven 
airships are maintainable technology at TL 4 (below this it is unlikely that 
the steam engines can be made light enough).  If the civilisation has built 
up from lower TL, I would say that TL 5 is required, as the airships are 
unlikey to have a useful range until internal combustion becomes 
established.

If you really want the world to be low-tech, you can postulate TL 3 hot air 
ballons pulled along by local flying creatures.  Hot air ballons have too 
little bouyancy to carry a useful load, based on my calculations, whereas 
hydrogen-filled bags provide much more lift - enough for the passengers and 
the engines.  Production of hydrogen gas should be considered easily 
available at TL 4 in my opinion, but again you can find TL 3 examples if you 
are desparate to keep the TL down!


Simon - a chemical engineer!
(Much of this information is taken from Children's Brittanica, 4th Edition)

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 10:43:42 -0800
From: Richard Hough <rdhough@orca.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: T4.1 Chargen: Increasing Skill points

David P. Summers (summers@alum.mit.edu) posts:

>OK, I guess I understand the point that there may be a problem in the
>chargen system.  I had been focusing on the issue that supposedly stats
>counted for more than skills in the task resolution system.

It's only a problem if you think that a skill of 4 (or whatever) means the
same thing as a characteristic of 4. It doesn't; they run off different
scales. A skill of 4 is very high, a characteristic of 4 is very low.

>That was my point.  The net spread, or variation, of
>skill numbers is not qualitatively different than the spread of
>stats.

This is not true. As I pointed out in my earlier post, the two are
substantially different. Skills typically have a range of 2 or 3 points.
Characteristics have a range of 7 or more points. This is not simply a
quirk of the character generation system, it is a fundamental game
mechanic. If the variation of skills were not qualitatively different than
the spread of characteristics cases where a skill is a negative DM, like
defending using Brawling, would not work. You would get things like
negative target numbers.

>Well, every skill roll uses each stat and skill once, so usage
>is the same.

While it's true a task roll uses one skill and one characteristic, it's not
true their usage is the same. There are many more skills than
characteristics, so each characteristic is used with several skills. If you
examine the skill list you will see that characteristics are used many
times more than skills.

>Well, unless I'm wrong, stats of 14 are not suppose to be common
>and skills above 2 are suppose to be relatively common for someone
>who is conentrating on that.

First of all, it is not valid to compare a "common" characteristic with a
skill you are "concentrating on"; you should compare typical
characteristics and skills or ones that are both being "concentrated on".
It is quite easy to get a characteristic of 14 if you "concentrate" on it,
especially Education using the T4 rules. Also, your claim was that
characteristics and skills were not "qualitatively different", so the
comparison of a characteristic of 14 with a skill of 2 is not supportive
your claim.

>I haven't used Traveller enough to comment on the importance of
>skills and stats outside of the task resolution system.

There is no way one can get an adequate understanding of any game mechanic
without playtesting; I believe the current imbalances in the task system
and experience rules are evidence of that. Characteristics are used in many
rules outside the task system and this has to be included in any comparison
between the effects of characteristics and skills.

>As I pointed out in my other post. They are equally weighted.
>Its not the size of the numbers that shows how much its
>weighted, its the variation.

Yes, you made this claim several times; it's just not correct. Skills and
characteristics are not even close to being "evenly weighted". The average
characteristic is about 4 times that of the average skill. Characteristics
typically vary by 10 or more points than skills. The combination totally
overwhelms any contribution skills make to the task system. And of course
in mechanics like the personal pools, strength rolls, enlistment rolls,
promotion rolls, and so on, skills are not included and have no worth at
all. Having a Pilot-16 skill would have no effect whatsoever on your
ability to get, keep, or be successful in a piloting career.

I am actually quite confused on what you base your assertions that the
variation of skills and characteristics are the same. What character
generation system do you use? The one in the rulebook bases characteristics
on a 2d6 roll while starting all skills off at zero. Before you even begin
a career, characteristics can vary by 10 points while skills do not vary at
all. Character generation includes both positive and negative modifiers for
characteristics but only positive modifiers for skills. This tends to
increase the starting variation in characteristics more than skills. The
characteristics of the sample character shown on page 25 of the T4 rule
book vary by 5 points while the skills vary by no more than 2 points. And I
think this example shortchanges the characteristic variation since Mr.
Jamison's lowest characteristic is a 7. Certainly characters my players and
I have generated have far greater variation in characteristrics than skills.

>The idea that skills should count more than
>attributes is one that has been kicked around in a
>lot of game systems.  It is an example of personal
>preference that different systems take different
>spins on.

I agree with this sentiment, it's just not relevant to this discusion. In
the T4 rules characteristics have a totally overwhelming effect on tasks
and skills have practically no effect at all. It is not an issue of whether
skills should "count more", right now they hardly count at all.

I also have one astonishing bit of news. Nearly all of the proposed
alternate task systems DO NOT count skills more than characteristics.
KBv2.0 certainly does not. With a typical characteristics of 8 and a skills
of 2, the tripling effect of KBv2.0 makes characteristics contribute around
6 points, or about 42% of the target number. And of course characteristics
are still used in more tasks and it does nothing about all the rolls skills
do not count in at all. KBv2.0 still weighs characteristics more than
skills. The difference is than in KBv2.0 skills have a minor effect and in
T4.1 they have effectively none.

>Most definately.  The idea that a talented beginner could beat
>out and mediocre hack with experience would not be considered
>reasonable on a lot of other lists.

This is a utter straw man. None of the alternate proposed systems have the
effect you seem to be claiming; in every system a character with a high
characteristics has an edge over one with a lower characteristic. In every
system a top notch expert has to have a high controlling attribute as well
as a high skill. The only difference is that with the T4 system ones' skill
level is practically irrelevant.


- --
Richard Hough
rdhough@orca.bc.ca

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 15:04:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale

On Sat, 21 Jun 1997 CardSharks@aol.com wrote:

> I also think some of this is a reflectionof inadequate task specification...
> to what extent do modifiers for tools, rehearsal, training, experience,
> qualifications, team support, and other variables make someone with years of
> training more likely to be successful than someone with Char-11 and Skill-1.

Hmmm.  Yes, that could very well be the way out I couldn't find in my 
previous message on this subject.  Skill could be the key to good DM's, 
whereas low skill could lead to lower DMs.  Hmmm.  That could easily make 
the task system unwieldy, but, perhaps there is a way...?


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

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 97 21:23 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Hardware, firmware, software

In-Reply-To: <VA.0000038e.01fca7c1@taz>

Simon,

> 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!

Make sure it's an *old* version of Excel. Not everyone has the latest.
______________________________________________________________________
Andrew M J Boulton                  http://www.compulink.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 97 21:23 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: re: T4 Task Rationale

In-Reply-To: <9706202026.AA02202@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu>

Bruce,

> 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.

Good point.
______________________________________________________________________
Andrew M J Boulton                  http://www.compulink.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 97 21:24 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: T4.1 Char Gen Checklist

In-Reply-To: <199706210714.DAA09175@Mithril.MPGN.COM>

Eris,

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

In Real Life, ISTM the main reason for someone who *can* go to Uni but 
does't is money. Either they can't afford it, or they'd rather have a job 
now than in 3-4 years time. Maybe the rules should include some way to 
represent this? 
______________________________________________________________________
Andrew M J Boulton                  http://www.compulink.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 97 21:24 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Technology demonstrators

In-Reply-To: <33A886B3.3D1C@best.com>

JayStr,

> Perhaps this is already addressed somewhere in the length and breadth of
> the reams of rules that exist for the Trav universe, and I just missed
> it... but is it possible to hand-build items one TL higher than the
> predominant one in that field? and do it at a greater cost multiplier?

I don't see why not (within reason). Maybe 2x mass/volume, 10x cost?
______________________________________________________________________
Andrew M J Boulton                  http://www.compulink.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 97 21:23 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: T4.1 Char Gen Checklist

In-Reply-To: <970621012429_-1328204751@emout06.mail.aol.com>

,

> 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?

It's a trade-off between realism and playability. At what point do you decide 
you're making it too complicated, and just go back to Ch+Sk?
______________________________________________________________________
Andrew M J Boulton                  http://www.compulink.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 97 21:23 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Rule of Man TL

In-Reply-To: <l03020902afd07500f6dd@[194.119.133.248]>

SD,

> 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

Medical and possibly computer tech, certainly 13, maybe even a few 14 
experiments. Certainly no higher.

> 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...

You are not alone.
______________________________________________________________________
Andrew M J Boulton                  http://www.compulink.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1456
***********************************
