Traveller-digest       Sunday, June 22 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1459



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Task System Revision Poll Results So Far
Re: T4 Task Rationale
Task System: Four Simple Proposals
Re: T4.1 Chargen: Increasing Skill points
Skills, task systems and all that (long)
Re: T4 Task Rationale
Re: Yet more task stuff
Re: Yet more task stuff
Young Turks vs Old Fossils
Re: Party time for munchkins
Re: Skills, task systems and all that
Automatic Successes (was Task Systems)
I'M BACK!!
Re: T4 Task Rationale

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 97 22:30:41 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Task System Revision Poll Results So Far

On 06/21/97 at 06:23 PM,  "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net> said:

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

>	Only because I'm an anal-retentive purist. On the big scale, 4.

Look at the numbers I sent out tonight *without* the 1/2 die.  The numbers
for Routine and Impossible tasks hit your suggested targets within a couple
of percent. 

I've decided that Stat+Skill *will* work, but we have to drop the 1/2 die
and get used to giving out even *more* skills per term.  Maybe not 8/term,
though.  Now that I look at the numbers, I think 6/term might do it.  I
also think we're all going to have trouble with any CharGen process that
allows characteristics of 10+ to become common.

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

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 19:20:26 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale

Sat, 21 Jun 1997 13:18:12 +0100,  SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>

>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.

Well, I guess I simply don't agree.  I'm a scientist and I've seen
new people with talent upstage people who have been in the field
for years.

>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.

A minumum of training.  It may be that the task system could use
an attibute based standard also...

>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'm not sure you you come to a target number of 13 being "twice"
as good as a 10.  In any case, Dex 7 is such a clutz I wouldn't
be suprised if he didn't mess up most of the time.

>I do not
>believe that this is realistic, or playable.

Clearly we disagree.

>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.

I don't see how.  If you make skills high the GM needs to generate
high skill NPC's.  The opposition always has to be consistent
with how the PC's are made up.

>In addition, the attraction is to power game the stats and fiddle the
>rolls.

I don't see this at all.  If you make skills more important, then
powergamers will just go that way.  And I have yet to see anything
about how the current task system makes players 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.

Well, the problem is that stats are randomly generated.  I prefer
pointed based system for this reason.  I just don't see randomly
generating a number and then having to demphasis it because it
is random as the best way to go.  But then some people prefer
a measure of radomness in character creation and it is Traveller's
historic approach.

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 97 23:05:17 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Task System: Four Simple Proposals

On 06/21/97 at 01:34 PM,  Richard Hough <rdhough@orca.bc.ca> said:

>You don't have much experience with munchkins, do you? A true munchkin
>would only roll on the physical and mental development tables until they
>get a UPP of FFFFF7 (munchkins don't care about social standing). 

Ah, yes!  After doing all my number crunching today, I've come to the
conclusion that inflated Characteristics and that darn 1/2 die are what are
messing up everything.  ;->

Let's change the "physical and mental developement tables" to squash this
road to Munchkinastan!

Proposal 1:  No Characterictic can be advanced beyond 12.  Additionally, to
advance a Characteristic requires successfully completing a roll on 2d6
equal or higher than your current level, examples..DEX=7, roll 7+ to
advance one level; EDU=11, roll 11+ to advance to the ultimate level.

    Reasoning:  Charactistics are the base of many skills, and represent
    the basic nature of the PC.  They should be increasingly difficult
    to advance, and only under the most exceptional circumstances should
    they exceed the normalized human maximum of 12.  
    
Proposal 2:  Change the Task Difficulty Levels to the following...

              1d6  Simple
              2d6  Average (or my preference, Routine)
              3d6  Difficult
              4d6  Formidable
              5d6  Staggering
              6d6  Impossible (or my preference, Hopeless)
              
    Reasoning:  The numbers given by (Characteristic+Skill) Target
    Numbers work well with this range of difficulties.  It eliminates
    the 1/2 die, and that will make *many* people happy.  It also fits
    well with the Char+Skill methodoligy.  I know some people will be
    unhappy with 6 dice, but "Impossible" tasks should be relatively
    rare.
    
Proposal 3: Base the Target Number on Char+Skill+DM's.

    Reasoning:  This is simple, and after analysis does value Skills
    more than Stats, as long as the Stats don't routinely exceed 10.
    This also does least damage to compatability between T41 and T4.

Proposal 4:  Change Character Generation to increase the number of skills
earned each term.  I'm unsure of exactly how much the increase should be,
but as a first cut, I propose...6 skills per term.  These 6 skills might be
allocated as (Career related..1/year plus 2/term Free Choice).

    Reasoning:  Adding additional skills balances the slightly more
    difficult Task Difficulties without resorting to multiplying or
    dividing anything.  Frankly, every player in the world likes *more*
    skills and higher levels in the ones they have, and making the
    players happy is good for business.  ;-> This isn't a proposal, but
    some sort of cap on Skill Levels, like that on Characteristics might
    also be in order...I'm just not sure about that.


What do you think?


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

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 20:45:35 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: T4.1 Chargen: Increasing Skill points

Sat, 21 Jun 1997 10:43:42 -0800, Richard Hough <rdhough@orca.bc.ca>
>>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.

You are comparing absolute values again.  I just don't agree
with this approach.  The fact is that skills run from 0 and
stats run from 2.  Additionally, low stats are rarer and hence
the effective lower level has to adjusted for the fact that
stats are non-linear.  100% of the characters start at a
skill of 0.  Only 2.8% of them start at a stat of 2.

>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.

Um no, skills can go up to 6 at least, for a range of 7.

>>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.

Each _task roll_ has a comparable input from stat and skill.
The _task system_ does have the same usage.  Now it can be
pointed out that a stat is a more fundamental attribute, and
so should be harder to get in character generation.  I agree
with this.  But the fact is that, for me at least, the equal
input of stat and skill into the task resolution is realistic.

>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".

Well, this is even more complicated.  Noone should realistically
try concentration on a career that they are inept at (ie have
a low stat).  That means that saying the range of stats in
that case goes down to 2 is even more unrealistic.

>It is quite easy to get a characteristic of 14 if you "concentrate" on it,
>especially Education using the T4 rules.

I have agree that you shouldn't be able to get stats as easily
as skills.  If you make it difficult to get stats you will
have (as I pointed out in my earlier posts) people rolling
stats that cluster mostly around 5-9 with characters raising
them a step or two.

>>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.

Um, was specifically talking about mechanic outside of the task
system.  I have looked at he task system and I simply don't believe
it emphasises stats too much.

>>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.

Just to be accurate.  It isn't correct _in your opinion_.
I stand by what I've said.  If you believe it to be incorrect
you are free to point why.

>Skills and
>characteristics are not even close to being "evenly weighted". The average
>characteristic is about 4 times that of the average skill.

As I said.  It's not the absolute value.  That is irrelevant.
If stats that range from 100-120 and skills range from 0-20
you _can_ add them together and have them equally important.

>Characteristics
>typically vary by 10 or more points than skills.

I'm sorry, but stats do not _typically_ vary over the
whole range.  It's a bell curve.  The extreme ends are
rare.

>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.

Right, and since rolls like a 2-4, or 10-12 are hard to get it
reduces the effective range of stats.  It is pointless to
worry about a number that only affect 2 or 3 stats out
of a hunderd.

>>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;

I'm sorry.  The question of whether the alternate system do over
emphasis skills _is_ in dispute and _is_ germane to the issue.
Additionally, this is a counter to a claim that _has_ been put
forward against the current task system.  If this is not a
point you want to address, then I suggest you just don't
address it.

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 00:53:00 -0400
From: hdhale@siscom.net (Harold Hale)
Subject: Skills, task systems and all that (long)

Bill Hopper writes:

> Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale
 
> 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.

   Here's the problem: doing something (changing a tire, performing
surgery, engaging in a aerial dogfight, shooting at a 25 meter target)
can be made so complex in a game so as to make doing anything in a
reasonable amount of time impossible.  No one wants a game in which just
landing your ship, walking through the starport and engaging in
conversation at the local pub takes all evening (real time).

   Fact is, that when you are dealing with physically-oriented skills
(playing basketball, boxing, etc.) physical attributes are just as
important (sometimes even more so) than skill level.  Otherwise the best
baseball/football players would all be over 35.  When you look at an
athlete at the professional level over that is over age 35, you find
someone who has maintained himself physically (extra workouts, better
diet), and/or someone who has managed to replace "points" lost off his
physical stats with "points" of skill.

   Declaring in mentally-oriented skills (History, Research, etc.) that
skill level is more important than relevant attribute (INT or EDU) is
debatable at best, but let's go ahead and conceed the point.  Now, how
do we formulate task resolution?  Using the physically-oriented skills
model (skill level equal in importance to relevant attribute) or the
mentally-oriented skill model (skill level greater importance than
relevent attribute)?  Using more than one method makes task resolution
confusing IMHO. As the physical model is easier to justify than the
mental model (again IMHO), as imperfect as you might think it is, using
a system in which skill points equal attribute points is the better way
to go.

   Surgery as a skill could be argued as being under Education just as
well as Dexterity.  However, you would be made just as nervous by a
clumsy surgeon who knew a great deal about surgery as you would a
surgeon who could carve Gothic letters on your spleen but couldn't tell
you the proper procedure for removing one.  *For purposes of
simplicity*, only one attribute is used, in this case dexterity.

[Oh God not another proposed task resolution fix...]

   If you wanted to make things a bit more realistic, then *some* skills
should use an average of two attributes.  Surgery for example: Dr.
William Kildare is a brilliant young surgeon, who has the physical gifts
to be a great surgeon one day, but isn't there quite yet (Surgery-2,
Dex-12, Edu-8).  Using the current TNE/T4 system of Dex+skill would
yield a number of 14, where as a revised system [((12+8)/2)+skill] would
yield a number of 12.  That lowers the chances of success somewhat, and
adds a bit more emphasis on skill in certain situations.  This system
would be easier to use than any others I've seen proposed thus far
(unless somebody came up with something while I was away), and can be
easier to justify than the current system.  For example, Dr. Kildare's
twin brother Bob is just as dexterous as his brother (Dex-12) but he
spent his evenings and weekends hitting the books instead of out getting
drunk/pissed (Edu-12), unlike his brother.  Dr. Bob Kildare has an equal
amount of surgery skill as his brother (Surgery-2), but because he has
far more book knowledge than his brother William, he's a better surgeon
[((12+12)/2+skill)=14].  I would trust him to find my spleen, and take
out with competantly.

Marc Miller writes:

> 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, task systems in general work, so long as they don't get bogged
down with too many modifiers, odd dice or too much math--I see no reason
to drop the idea.  The current T4 system doesn't work so well IMHO
because of the insistence on a modified D6 system.  Back when a D20 was
used under TNE, there simply wasn't the level of problems now associated
with using the skill+attribute system.

Stephen writes:

> Subject: Re:Hardware, Firmware, Software

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

   Talk about fodder for the FAQ file!  For the last time: having used
*both* Mac (all versions) and Windows (all versions), neither is
superior to the other, just *different*.  Now don't make me yell at you
kids again or there will be no ice cream tonight after dinner!  :-)

Marc Miller writes: 

> 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? 

   Using AOL for anything generally acts as a severe negative modifier
against success.  :-)  No question that "environmental factors" can act
in a positive or negative manner on your chances of success.  I think
that people try to keep the modifiers to a minimum, since it tends to
slow down the pace of the game.  Having a consolidated chart of the most
common modifiers would be something that people could really use.

   Something I've seen in Star Wars and would make a nice addition would
be to include some kind of modifier for teamwork.  TNE doesn't have one,
nor does any other version of Traveller (at least none that come to
mind).

> Or conversely, isn't the problem that anyone who can will pursue an advanced 
> education if they get a chance?

   There has to be a degree of player (and referee) self control here. 
Yes, it's possible that a Scout character could do the self-study thing
and end up with a high EDU attribute, but a pirate is unlikely to spend
much time hitting the books.  Players need to define what kind of
character they want to run before they start the generation process, and
then the referee needs to enforce it.  The Universe is not going to
consist of a bunch of PhDs (or equivalents) running around shooting at
each other.

Regards,

Harold

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 21:56:19 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale

Sat, 21 Jun 1997 20:50:33 -0400, Ethan Henry <ehenry@magmacom.com>
>Anyways, I think what you're trying to say here is not that
>stats dominate, so much as that without a high stat, you'll
>never attain high skill.

Well, sort of.  I'm saying they are both important.  To be
the best in your field is an equal mixture of talent and
dedications.  Guys in the NBA are both amazingly talented
_and_ spend hours at it.  They should be better than both
people with just talent and just training.

>> And others are just as clear that it's the opposite....

>Hm, well, I dunno about age or youth, but I think it's
>unfair that having a high stat like DEX improves your
>chances at performing 26 different skills, while
>having a high skill level improves your chances at
>doing only one. Weenie min-maxers will throw for or
>pick stat increases over skills every time, which
>makes for unintersting characters.

I don't agree it's "unfair".  Some people are just
better at alot of things than others.  I do agree
that in game terms a stat increase should be harder
to get than a skill increase.  But that is character
generation issue.

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 22:16:28 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Yet more task stuff

Thu, 19 Jun 1997 01:38:52 +0000, "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
>I think that if we are pleased, then the chances are that most of the
>occasional Traveller players out there will be pleased as well.


Actually, as more casual observer, I must say that this list has
certain biases that are not shared in gaming generally.

>Besides, if you play RPGs, you'd expect some complexity.

The lable "complexity" is a real bubaboo in gaming these
days.  I you are marketting a game you don't want it seen
as "complex".

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 22:33:28 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Yet more task stuff

Thu, 19 Jun 1997 01:38:52 +0000, "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
>I think that if we are pleased, then the chances are that most of the
>occasional Traveller players out there will be pleased as well.


Actually, as more casual observer, I must say that this list has
certain biases that are not shared in gaming generally.

>Besides, if you play RPGs, you'd expect some complexity.

The lable "complexity" is a real bubaboo in gaming these
days.  I you are marketting a game you don't want it seen
as "complex".

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 97 00:20:58 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Young Turks vs Old Fossils

On 06/21/97 at 07:20 PM,  "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu> said:

>I'm a scientist and I've seen new people with talent upstage people who have >been in the field for years.

I'm not a scientist..I just play one on TV <g>..but seriously, what you are
seeing is the enternal battle between the "Young Turks" and the "Old
Fossils."  You can see it taking place in *any* organization from
government, to military, to Universities.

It isn't that the "new people" are more talented or better trained, it's
just that they are more *recently* trained and MUCH hungrier.  The "old
boys" have already made their waves, secured their positions and don't want
these kids rocking their boats.  The "Turks" just *know* how much better
they are, and they are only too willing to show it, and they have to or
they won't ever get one of this comfortable positions.  They better be
careful though, because if they push the "fossils" hard enough they might
rouse from their comfortable slumber and kick the "whippersnapper's" butts. 
;->

Maybe, we should model the strong possiblity of having 1 year of real skill
growth (Skill-1)...repeated 20 times in a career.  ;-> 

Look around and tell me you don't see it.  People who have been at the job
for 20 years, but their last real increase in skill was the year they
arrived.  People who had some *real* skill "on the line", "in the field",
but who got "promoted" to management/administration and have lost the edge
off of the skills that got them promoted in the first place.

Marc said he doesn't like the idea of a 0 skill increase, but believe you
me that happens.


Eris 

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

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 01:30:22 -0400
From: hdhale@siscom.net (Harold Hale)
Subject: Re: Party time for munchkins

Richard Hough writes:

>You don't have much experience with munchkins, do you? A true munchkin
>would only roll on the physical and mental development tables until they
>get a UPP of FFFFF7 (munchkins don't care about social standing). When they
>start playing, they probe the referee to see what the adventure will be
>about (assuming the ref designed the adventure; if it's a published
>adventure he buys the book). Then, supposing the adventure will require
>medical and gun skill, our hero takes a St. John's correspondence course to
>get Medic-1 and gets an FAC certificate at a gun club. Our brave traveller
>now faces the world with a target number of 16 in every important skill.

   My players have learned through hard experience that if they want to
be superheroes, they will have to face supervillians (badguys will equal
stats).  As for adventures (Nick, you can stop reading this message
now), frequently *I* don't know where the story is going to go next
session, let alone my players.  I love to improvise things on the spot
and go with what ever the players throw at me.  This means that they
literally have no clue what I'm doing behind the Referee's Screen, which
is the way it ought be.  Predictability is fatal to a referee.

   Favorite referee torture device: finding a player that has killer
stats and then placing him or her in a position where those stats are
meaningless.  This can involve stranding a ground pounder on a broken
spaceship, taking a space combat expert and forcing him to survive a
firefight on the ground, or forcing a group of "shoot first and ask
questions later" PCs to look for clues to a mystery on a planet where
they can't carry any guns (or their guns won't save them).  Being in
charge is a *good* thing....

Regards,

Harold

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 97 01:01:09 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Skills, task systems and all that

On 06/22/97 at 12:53 AM,  hdhale@siscom.net (Harold Hale) said:

>   Surgery as a skill could be argued as being under Education just as
>well as Dexterity.  However, you would be made just as nervous by a clumsy
>surgeon who knew a great deal about surgery as you would a surgeon who
>could carve Gothic letters on your spleen but couldn't tell you the proper
>procedure for removing one.  *For purposes of
>simplicity*, only one attribute is used, in this case dexterity.

Harold, I would suggest that surgury would be a case where you'd want to
break the task into several parts, forex:

 To diagnosis the medical problem; 
 (INT+Medical) + (Medical Database)DM + (Diagnositic Equipment)DM <
 Difficult, 30min.
 
 To plan the proper surgical procedure;
 (EDU+Medical..Admin/2 may substitute)  < Difficult, 120min.
 
 To repair the heart valve;
 (DEX+Medical) +/ (Operating Theatre/appliances)DM + (Surgical Team)DM <
 Formidable, 90min, Fateful.
 
...or something similar.  We wouldn't do this for *ever* task, but I do
diagnosis problem, solve problem tasks with different characteristics all
the time.

BTW, in the above series of tasks, you'd want the *smart*, but sort of
clumsy internist diagnosing and setting up the operation, but your want the
*very* dexterious surgeon and her *highly* trained TEAM actually opening
your chest...and that's how it works too.  ;->

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

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 00:26:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com>
Subject: Automatic Successes (was Task Systems)

I've one idea on how to make skills more important.  How about the idea of
automatic successes based on skill level.  Both CORPS and Conspiracy X use
this system to great effect.  The basic idea is that for a sufficient
level of skill there are tasks which are easy enough that the PC does not
need to roll to succeed. 

In the game Conspiracy X, Skills are rated 1 (novice) to 5 (world-class
expert). Tasks are also rated 1 (Easy) to 5 (Impossible).  If the PC's
skill level exceeds the rating of the task then the PC can automatically
succeed at the task w/o rolling. 

This could be adopted for T4.1.  For a first approximation, how about this:

Skill Level:	Tasks which automatically succeed

1		Easy
2		Easy
3		Average
4		Average
5		Difficult
6		Difficult

I don't believe skill elves should exceed 6, so I'm not extending the
table beyond this.  This type of system would help to reassert the
importance of high skill levels. 

Comments?


- -John Snead jsnead@netcom.com 

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 14:59:13 -0800
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@asylumbbs.com>
Subject: I'M BACK!!

I've been kept abreast of some of the goings on...

like Marc's challenge to ken re the task system

chalk me up as against the multiple dice versus att+skill method, and even
tying skills directly to a single attribute.

rationale:

a good pilot prepping a course for n-space hohman transfer orbits shouldn't
be using dex, but int. Maneuvering in combat should be dex.

the variable dice for difficulty just doesn't mesh with the compressed
skill levels and attribute scale well.

IMHO

William F. Hostman		If you were using Eudora Lite 3.0,
Mailto:Aramis@asylumbbs.com 	<-- that would be a hot-link 

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 05:16:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale

CHANCE OF TASK SUCCESS (if 2.5D is the Difficult task)
	Easy	Avg	Diff	For	Sta	Imp
S+C	1D	2D	2.5D	3D	4D	5D 
1	17%	-	-	-	-	-
2	33%	3%	-	-	-	-
3	50%	8%	1%	0%	-	-
4	67%	17%	4%	2%	0%	-
5	83%	28%	9%	5%	0%	0%
6	100%	42%	18%	9%	1%	0%
7	-	58%	29%	16%	3%	0%
8	-	72%	43%	26%	5%	1%
9	-	83%	57%	38%	10%	2%
10	-	92%	71%	50%	16%	3%
11	-	97%	82%	63%	24%	6%
12	-	100%	91%	74%	34%	10%
13	-	-	96%	84%	44%	15%
14	-	-	99%	91%	56%	22%
15	-	-	100%	95%	66%	31%
16	-	-	-	98%	76%	40%
17	-	-	-	100%	84%	50%
18	-	-	-	-	90%	60%
19	-	-	-	-	95%	70%
20	-	-	-	-	97%	78%
21	-	-	-	-	99%	85%
22	-	-	-	-	100%	90%
23	-	-	-	-	-	94%
24	-	-	-	-	-	97%
25	-	-	-	-	-	98%
26	-	-	-	-	-	99%
27	-	-	-	-	-	99%


CHANCE OF TASK SUCCESS (if 3D is the Difficult task).			
	Easy	Avg	Diff	For	Sta
S+C	1D	2D	3D	4D	5D 
1	17%	-	-	-	-
2	33%	3%	-	-	-
3	50%	8%	0%	-	-
4	67%	17%	2%	0%	-
5	83%	28%	5%	0%	0%
6	100%	42%	9%	1%	0%
7	-	58%	16%	3%	0%
8	-	72%	26%	5%	1%
9	-	83%	38%	10%	2%
10	-	92%	50%	16%	3%
11	-	97%	63%	24%	6%
12	-	100%	74%	34%	10%
13	-	-	84%	44%	15%
14	-	-	91%	56%	22%
15	-	-	95%	66%	31%
16	-	-	98%	76%	40%
17	-	-	100%	84%	50%
18	-	-	-	90%	60%
19	-	-	-	95%	70%
20	-	-	-	97%	78%
21	-	-	-	99%	85%
22	-	-	-	100%	90%
23	-	-	-	-	94%
24	-	-	-	-	97%
25	-	-	-	-	98%
26	-	-	-	-	99%
27	-	-	-	-	99%

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1459
***********************************
