Traveller-digest       Monday, June 23 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1463



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Party time for munchkins
Re: Minimum TL for...
Re: I'M BACK!!
Solicited Opinions on Traveller
Editions and Mechanics comments
Re: Meta-facts?
Re:Minimum TL for...
Re: T4.1 tasks
Re: T4 Task Rationale
Re: Task System: Four Simple Proposals
Re: Task System: Compromise Solution
Re: Task System: Compromise Solution
Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 09:15:45 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Party time for munchkins

>   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,

Yes but under T4 a FFFFF7 guy with level 1 in important skills nothing is
hard unless the ref invents an adventure revolving around knitting
competitions, japanese tea ceremonials or such stuff that the character
doesnt have skills in but an FFFFF7 guy would still have an asset of 8 in
any and all tasks (characteristic/2 for lack of skill right?)


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 09:04:04 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Minimum TL for...

>    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!
>
>Stephen

I use that on Victoria in Spinward marches. The high oxygen level stems
from a peculiar plant that carries its seed over vast distances by
inflating balloonlike fruits with hydrogen. The hydrogen is taken from
water at considerable energy cost to the plant and the excess oxygen is
vented producing the high partial pressure below the mesas. Primitive
humans live on the mesas cruising around in large handcranked or
steampropelled airships. The humans have to go hydrogen foraging on the
lower levels to get new hydrogen and as this is damaging to humans this is
done by prisoners. Great fun with age of sail style fleet battles in the
air. My players spent more than 1 year (real world year) marooned on the
planet. There's an article about Victoria in JTAS#2 and you should pick up
the book "Prisoners of the sky" for ideas on this particular setting.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 09:18:47 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: I'M BACK!!

>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.

maneuvering in space combat should be int! Space combat isn't the same as
air dogfighting. It is aminly about guessing what your oppenent(s) is doing
during lightlag, cerebral stuff. All in my universe of course and if your
space fights are like most peoples ie Star Wars then of course it should be
DEX.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 03:20:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: GypsyComet@aol.com
Subject: Solicited Opinions on Traveller

Since everyone else is spouting opinions...


  IMHO, T4 is the best laid out of any of the basic rulebooks save possibly
the CT Traveller Book and large format boxed set editions. I find that,
I can actually find the four pages in this book which define the task
system and effects of injury, and the two pages which define the rules of
character generation, and tell by these few pages what makes this edition
different.  This is a good thing, because if I can find these things in
my first flip through the book then finding them for reference purposes
later is a given.
  Say what you like about AD&D and TSR, but the original Player's Handbook
shared this easy accessability. You could tell with a quick glance what
part of the book you were in, either during first flip or later usage. The
different sections had distinctive layouts and elements, so there was no
need to look at the page headers for a subject to tell where you were in the
book.  If more game companies strove to meet this example (and the T4 rule
book comes close) the gaming world would be a better (and less myopic)
place.

GypsyComet

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 03:22:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: GypsyComet@aol.com
Subject: Editions and Mechanics comments

My comments will probably get lost in all this hoohaa, but it's worth a
shot...

 CT and MT:
  Both have an open structure for determining tasks, and both keep the
skill vs stat balance right around even. MT does it by dividing stats
by 5, bringing them down to the +0 to +3 range, right where most skills
are. CT does it by an uneven set of DMs ("DM +1 if STR 8+" for instance)
which accomplish the same thing.
  While it is possible to blow out the balance with a high skill,
the fact that skills are randomly rolled and limited in quantity reduces
this to rare cases.  The advanced systems (High Guard et al) disturbed
the balance, causing the "total skills may not exceed INT+EDU" rule to
be created.
  The open structure for tasks is the greatest strength of these systems
IMHO. As has been discussed at great length here, both recently and
historically, the Medical skill can be assisted by two or three of the
stats depending on the situation.  Thus a system which allows for this
generates fewer "But that's SILLY!" responses from players.
  In combat, injuries directly affect the stats, causing a bit of death
spiral effect, but not an insurmountable one. An elegant system. In MT
this system is hampered by bad editing, but the message is still a
simple one.

 TNE:
  Stat and skill are numerically weighted the same, but have slightly
different ranges. This imbalance is reduced by the multiplier system in
TNE, where the really difficult tasks are rolled on a fraction of the
stat+skill total. The imbalance is further controlled by the fact that
stats (the factor with the wider range) are randomly generated while
skills are numerous and chosen.
  In TNE it is possible to blow out the balance due to two things. First,
skills are all tied to a single stat for task resolution.  Second, as noted
here by others, the EDU stat is tied to a near majority of the skills
as well as being the easiest stat to raise by great amounts during
character generation. This means that it is fairly easy to blow out
a large number of skills with a fairly simple and legal set of character
generation steps. A simple return to the MT task definition (where each
task defines the appropriate skill AND stat) fixes much of this problem.
  In combat, injury has grown a set of rules regarding threshold levels
and penalties, and now involves hit locations. This has caused two new
"stats" to join the Traveller list: Hit capacities by location, and
Initiative. Very much a part of the second wave of RPGs, BTW, but not
really very elegant. The combat and injury system in TNE is made worse
by a nearly impenetrable editing job and a really horrid choice of
typeface.

 T4:
  I must confess that I haven't played this yet, though I own all of it
to date.  My regular Traveller group rebelled at learning the second new
system in five years (go figure). That said...
  T4 reverts to the CT/MT model of stat reduction due to injury. This I
like, not being a fan of binding hit location charts, and having searched
for but never found a better/simpler way to represent injury in combat.
  Stats and skills are weighted equally in the task system, but have
very different ranges. As with TNE, this is somewhat mitigated by the
(larger range) stats being randomly generated and the skill levels being
numerous.  The skills are not chosen, however, except under one variant
rule, and that same rule allows for chosen increases in stats as well.
No other part of the task system mitigates the range imbalance.
  The variable dice system is livable, though only the catastrophic
failure rule makes Impossible tasks really dangerous for a moderately
talented character (stat 7 + skill 3 = 10; avg on 4 dice = 14). Without
CFs, the system is lenient.  The half die issue obviously bugs a lot
of people, but as an old Champions player, they don't bother me much.
As noted by others, the half die throws the CF percentages into a
stairstep progression (1 in 36 for 2 and 2.5, 1 in 13.5 for 3 and 3.5,
1 in 7.6 or so for 4 dice), but I frankly don't consider this a problem
that cripples the game.
  If you insist, however...
  To keep changes to a minimum, double the skills awarded per term and
move the task progression up to full dice (2 thru 7 dice probably).
Everybody now has larger numbers on their character sheets (something
that seems to make gamers happy), the balance is restored unless you
want to generalize severely, and you don't have to figure out half dice.
CF would have to go to three 6s in this case.
  To replace this system completely, revert to MT for task resolution
but leave character generation alone. Now you are dividing stats instead
of dice.
  Or switch to TNE, again leaving T4 character generation rules alone.
Now you are multiplying assets and have lost the Most Holy Bell-Curve.


  To contribute to the other religious argument going on here, let me say
that I own a Mac and am proud of the fact. I consider my meager Unix
skills more useful than nearly any level of W95 knowledge, and I find
great irony in the fact that Wintel users who turned up their noses at
the Mac because it was a "toy" now brag that they have more games for
their machines.


Ha!

GypsyComet

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 09:28:03 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Meta-facts?

>   One of the things I always enjoyed about CT was that the canon
>   allowed me, a referee, to `adventure' just by reading the rumors,
>   information, and Library Data and trying to puzzle what was in store
>   for the Traveller Universe.  I certainly hope that T4 products will
>   do the same.  I haven't seen Anomolies yet, but already this talk of
>   `tech level' (now that's an artificial construct if I've ever seen
>   one) being violated has already got me scheming and planning up ways
>   to rock my players' world!  And I'm tingling with anticipation to see
>   how the next generation of adventure writers will rock mine.
>
>   -Rob

I suspect the reason there are so many refs without players on TML and
elsewhere is that Traveller unlike other RPG (with the possible exception
of Harn) didn't tell the ref the facts but rather hinted at them and put
the ref in the players position regarding the truths about the universe.
The old Keith adventures were like that as well; good to read as fiction as
well as good adventures. The DGP nugget format destroyed that but I still
think that if Traveller had told the ref what the Ancients were, if
Strephon really was a robot, that the 5:th frontier war was coming the game
would have a lot less referees.
The only good thing with TNE (except the rules) was that they didn't tell
what was behind the black curtain.


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 97 08:09:00 GMT 
From: s.johnson107@genie.com
Subject: Re:Minimum TL for...

>> Good point, hadn't really thought of that, though... I know that current
>> Hot Air Balloonists use the winds at varying altitudes to move their
>> balloons around...  <making notes for future reference>
> Hmmm I was thinking of a TL 2 'Air Clan' who travel around, at the mercy
> of the wind from place to place, and stuff just sort of haphazardly gets
> around...could make for some really odd diffusion of technology.
	I don't think so, look at the Polynesians.  Over time they figured out
how to travel across vast distances of oceans with effectively TL 0 technology.
Over time your "Air Clan" would figure out the air currents and master them to
their best advantage. ;)

>> Hmmm... You've got me thinking in terms of geneered organisms here for
>> distiling stuff....
> They're called Yeasts! ;-)
	Thank you!  A bit of distiling can give you high enough octane/proof
alcohol to run an engine on!  More to the point a touch of geneering would give
me hydrogen producing yeasts. ;)

>> Hmmmm!  Got me stirring the plotline pot nicely here!  Thanks!
> You're welcome...history is a great place to mine for plot ideas.
	::chuckle:: Especially when your players think history is for "old
foggies" <GRIN> I just LOVE giving them the historical basis for an adventure.
The older ones just groan, but the kids... bless their munchkiny little hearts!
They're picking up history books. <sly grin>

>> Couldn't they be custom made individually?  I mean we ALL think in
>> terms of interchangable parts and all.  However your average Master
>> Smith can do some fantastic things with metal.  You wouldn't Need
>> terribly powerful engines would be my thought here.  OC I could be
>> wrong too. ;)
> They could be, but you had better carry your Master Smith and all his
> tools with you, wherever you go...custom made stuff with
> non-interchangeable parts are great when you don't travel more than a
> few day's journey away from your manufacturing base.
	Hmmmm...!  I wonder, the same could be said of firearms and provided
the damage to a gun wasn't catestrophic... often an Apprentice or Journyman
Gunsmith could do the requisite repairs in the field.  I think I could justify
it...
	Now just how hard is it to build a low power/horsepower IC engine?

	Can any one point me to a site on Lighter Than Air craft?  Or better
yet, is the new FF&S going to cover LTA craft?

Thanks in advance,

Stephen

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 08:40:27 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: T4.1 tasks

On Mon, 23 Jun 1997 02:37:12 +0100, Bruce E J Lewis wrote:

> At 00:32 21/06/97 -0400, CardSharks@aol.com wrote:
> 
> >Try running a Marine with Dex less than 6 and you have a clumsy Marine.
> 
> 	What if some skills had restrictions, like, you can't wield a rifle if
> your DEX is less than 5, or you can't attempt any skill that uses a
> characteristic that you have less than six on.
> 
> 	E.g. Geri has Int of 4, so he can't attempt things like Disguise, Gunnery,
> Investigation and Sensors as they all rely on intelligence. Geri just isn't
> smart enough to pursue these things.
> 
> 	Then take Al, he can't attempt Survey, Comms, History and Law as he isn't
> educated enough - they all require EDUcation.
> 
> 	Different skills could have different levels, say, Law could have a
> minimum of 7 EDU, Comms could have a minimum of 5 EDU.
> 
> 	So, this would prevent low characteristic characters with high skill
> levels outdoing high characteristic-low skill level characters. Only
> characters with mid-range characteristics and high skill levels would be
> able to compete with high characteristic-low skill level characters.
> 
> 	This rule would stop weedy (STR), clumsy (DEX), unfit (END), stupid (INT),
> ignorant (EDU), common (SOC) people from achieving too much, if you're that
> way inclined of course...

Since statistic generation is performed using 2d6 in T4, a dice result
of "2" will occur approximately 3% of the time.  This would then
translate into meaning that about 3% of the population has a DEX of 2
(by the age of 18).  By taking 1,000 people and picking out the 30
worst individuals with regards to DEX (ie: 3%), you could then observe
their level of dexterity to define exactly what DEX=2 actually *is*.

That being said, I don't think a DEX of "2" would be all that
crippling to disallow a character from learning a particular
DEX-related skill.  While stat maximums of 15 (F) may actually
represent the maximum level for a human to obtain, I *do not* believe
that a DEX of 1 or 2 appropriately represents a person that is
incapable of holding a pen or walking in a straight line.

In other words, a stat of 2 does not represent utter ineptness, but
rather the lowest level _commonly_possessed_ by human beings (barring
special cases such as those with mental and/or physical disabilities).
The statistical bell curve just doesn't translate well if it is
considered "finite" at both ends.  It is unfair to state that 5% of
the world's young adults possess DEX 3 and 3% possess DEX 2, and then
go on to say that a DEX of 1 translates into "falling-down-drunk" and
a DEX of 0 means utter and complete immobility.  It's too big a jump
from DEX=2 to DEX=1 or 0.

IMHO, I think that when learning certain skills-- when one's stats are
below average-- the low stat+skill totals are enough of a hinderance.
If a player wishes to create a character with Gun Combat 5 and a DEX
of only 4, s/he should be allowed to do so.  Skill points could
probably be better used elsewhere, however (making the character much
more effective), but character generation has always been designed to
allow the player some control over his or her character's creation.

Additionally, I feel that skills should become increasingly more
difficult to raise during character generation as they climb above 3
or 4, *regardless* of the character's statistics.  T4 already takes
this into account when spending experience points.  If T4.1 takes this
into account during character creation, a character with DEX 4 & Gun
Combat 5 would be more "expensive" than one with DEX 7 & Gun Combat 2.

If T4 defines 15 (F) truly as the human statistic maximum, and 1 as
the minimum (zero representing special cases for each stat), what we
really need is a character creation process that generates stats
*much* more centered around the human average of 7 or 8 than the
current 2d6 system.  And that ain't gonna happen ;)

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: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 08:40:28 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale

On Sun, 22 Jun 1997 15:03:26 -0700, Douglas E. Berry wrote:

> At 08:50 PM 6/21/97 -0400, Ethan wrote:
> 
> >If I had to pick a house rule, I'd say that no skill can 
> >ever be higher than half or two-thirds (or something) of
> >the skill's controlling stat. ie. Someone with Edu-6 could
> >get a maximum of Law-3. I mean, you could be less educated 
> >than average and still be a professional lawyer. To be
> >a real crack lawyer, you'd need a higher EDU. So, someone
> >who had been to college, Edu-A or B, could, if they
> >studied law a lot, have Law-5.
> 
> I like this!  It makes stats important without being overwhelming, and
> helps focus characters.  If I might add an idea, to raise a skill above the
> Char/2 limit costs two skill choices.  The above EDU-6 lawyer could still
> rise to Law-6, but it would cost him *9* skill choices in the end.  This
> would define the driven men, who overcome their own limitations to acheive
> greatness.

Unfortunately, this only goes to penalize the low stat character,
while doing nothing to prevent Mr. EDU=12 from ruling the game with
all his EDU related skills.

While what you and Ethan state makes sense in the Real Way Of
Things(tm), it doesn't do much for game balance.  Normally, I like my
RPGs to relate well with the Real World(tm).  I also believe, however,
that characters (and therefore, players) should be "more-or-less"
equally balanced when entering the game.

While I understand that T4 doesn't create balanced characters,
anything that widens the rift between powerful and not-so-powerful
characters should be avoided (unless your players are ready to deal
with Conans and Les Nessmans cohabitating the same gaming group :)

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: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 08:40:28 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Task System: Four Simple Proposals

On Sun, 22 Jun 1997 09:38:20 -0600 (MDT), Merrick Burkhardt wrote:

> here's *my* addition :-)
> 
> Make Target Number equal to Stat+DMs.
> 
> Skill determines what difficulty level, but does nothing for target
> number (alternately you could add in in again as a DM, I'd need to
> look at the numbers).
> 
> Personally I look at the task and say to myself "What skill level
> person does this routinely?"  Whatever that skill is has an Average
> task.  Add or subtract from the difficulty level depending on
> whether the skill level is above or below this number.
> 
> SS might be either rolling dice code plus skill, or perhaps just
> skill or even just Stat.

Definitely *not* "just Stat".  This would mean that the two guys in
your example succeed spectacularly if they succeed at all.  I'd tend
towards rolling skill level or less only.  A level-6 Easy skill (1d6)
would have an SS 100% of the time, while a level-6 Average skill (2d6)
would have an SS less than half the time.

> SF is trickier since I'd want increased diff level to increase SF.

Rolling 2 sixes ought to do it.  This gives the Demo-4 guy listed
below a 3% chance of rolling an SF, while giving the bright guy a much
greater chance.  The more skill levels you have, the fewer dice you
will end up rolling and your chance for rolling 2 sixes goes down.

> That's the whole task system.
> 
> Ex:  A bright guy (Int 12) learned a little about explosives in the
> military (Demolitions-1).  A business is planning on destroying a
> building in place in a crowded city so it doesn't damage anthing
> nearby.  This task is normally done by extremely skilled explosives
> experts (Demo-4).  A demo-4 guy would have an Ave task (2d6) so our
> guy has it 3 diff levels harder than Ave---Staggering.
> 
> Our bright guy with a little explosives skill has  to roll a 12 or
> less on 5d6.  And Average explosives expert (Int 7, Demo-4) has to
> roll a 7 or less on 2d6.
> 
> [the only problem I might address is that Routine should really
> equal Easy since it implies that you do it right all the time]
> 
> I think KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) is extremely important.  I
> think the idea of doing to much (any, actually) math on the skills
> attributes is too complicated (whay make a Char Gen system that produces
> skill levels that you end up converting to something else and necer
> useing?).

I like it, although it will require some playtesting.  Bonuses include
the fact that it forces a cap on skill levels at "6" and doesn't
associate stats and skills with each other *directly*.  You could call
this task system SASARTS, or "Stats And Skills Aren't Related Task
System" :)

Difficulty levels would have to go as high as 8 dice, to take into
account skill-0 characters attempting tasks that would be considered
Average by level-6 individuals (2d6 for Ave task, plus 6d6 for the
difference between level-6 and level-0).

It will also tend to fall apart for characters with low stats (2-4),
making even simple tasks extremely difficult.  As I stated in another
post, a human with a stat of 2 (3% of the population, based on a 2d6
method for characteristic generation) shouldn't have to roll 2 or less
on 2d6 to succeed in an Average task.  Heck, the poor soul would have
only a 33% chance of succeeding in an Easy task!  You might want to
reduce the number of dice rolled at each level by one and come up with
a special rule regarding Easy tasks & low stats (perhaps using 1d3 :)

In a way, your idea of using skill level to determine the number of
dice to use, and using statistics for targeting numbers, is an
interesting one.  By making a single skill level equal to +/- 1 die
(with an average result of 3.5), you are essentially stating that
skill points are 3.5x as effective as stat points.  Sound familiar?

Between this task system and the one Eris is proposing, I'm having a
tough time deciding.  Perhaps a good nights sleep will help...

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: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 08:40:28 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Task System: Compromise Solution

On Sun, 22 Jun 97 13:47:17 -0500, Eris Reddoch wrote:

[snip]

> Flat Stat+Skill *does* weight the skill more heavily than I thought it did
> due to the nature of the bell curves.  So, for simplicity I'd like to find
> a way to make it flat Stat+Skill work.  It *will* work, as long as the Stat
> forming the flat base isn't too high, and too high looks like 13+ to me and
> it's worse with lower numbers of dice (at 13, the Stat contributes 83% on
> 3d and 44% on 4d..we aren't going to do much about the 3d, but for 4d and
> above I'd like to keep the base below 1/3).

Thinking back to CT, with its technique of using the skill level as a
DM to a predetermined target number (8+ in combat, for example) to
determine the final target number for the skill test, one could say
that in T4, "7" is the base target number for all skill tests, with
each statistic point in excess of 7 counting as a "+1 DM" and each
point shy of 7 as a "-1 DM".  Once you put things in this perspective,
above or below average statistics are essentially +/- DMs to a
character's skill levels (plus seven).

The trick then becomes "how do you manage these 'DMs' so that they
don't get out of hand and cause problems?"  How about limiting the
number of skills that can gain the benefit of stats above 12 in some
way.  That way, high stats won't give inhuman skill levels in all
skills associated with that particular stat.

For example, a DEX of 12 functions normally in all respects.  A DEX of
13 would function as a DEX of 12, except for "x" number of DEX-related
skills (chosen during character generation).  A DEX of 14 could
function as a DEX of 12 for most skills, a DEX of 13 for "x" number of
skills, and a DEX of 14 for another "x" number of skills (ie: the
number of skills treated as using a DEX higher than 12 would be 2x).

> The best way to do this is to
> keep Stat levels from commonly inflating into double digits.  Put a cap of
> 12 on them, and make it much harder to increase a high Stat than a low
> Stat.  Let the player and GM negotiate the "purchase" or "award" of
> temporary or artificially created Stat DM's to raise them (even above 12)
> in game play, but don't hand out 11's and 12's like candy to
> everybody...and T4/T41 does that.  Marc, your experience might not indicate
> that, but mine does.

I'm a little confused by what you mean by "purchase" or "award" of
temporary DMs.  Are you talking about something like Karma, Luck, or
Fortune Points that could be accumulated over the course of the
campaign and exchanged (on a temporary or permanent basis) for
one-shot DMs?

> We could use some technique to double the skills (not triple..that's too
> much for Staggering and *really* Hopeless tasks) or increase the number of
> skills players get during CharGen. For simplicity, I'm for increasing the
> number of skills.  If we don't increase the Target Number's to *quite* the
> number as might seem right, it also encourages the addition of DM's for
> Tools, Teams, and so on...and Marc it seems you *like* that.

These extra skill points would mean that individual skill points would
be devalued.  Not that this is a bad thing, but it might increase a
certain level of competence (eg: Professional) by a point or two.  In
other words, if you hand out more skill points, Gun Combat 6 no longer
represents a competence level as high as it currently does (either
that, or Traveller characters are competent in a *LOT* of skills).

> This means changing CharGen in two ways:  putting the Cap on Stats (I
> suggest rolling above your current Stat on a 2d6 to improve..and if the
> player wastes a skill roll trying, then tough...life's tough.  Instead of
> giving automatic EDU bonuses for completing advanced schooling give some
> additional skill rolls or maybe automatic increases in skills like
> Research, Perception, or Instruction.), and increasing the number of Skills
> (I suggest increasing the number of "childhood/background" skills by 3 or 4
> and giving 6 skills/term rather than 4.  The 6 could be 4 career oriented
> and 2 free choice.)

Good stuff here, except that according to canon, stats as high as 15
(F) must be obtainable some how (perhaps by converting acquired skill
picks into multiple +1 DMs for a future stat increase roll).

> These changes are minimal, easy to implement, don't violate the feel of
> Traveller, and give Target Numbers I think can live with.
> 
> Comments?

These ideas didn't, per chance, happen to originate during a dream,
did they?  I wasn't really thinking too much about the current task
system dilemma Saturday night and I was just about to drift off to
Baywatch-land when "it" just popped in there:

"Hello?"

"Psst... instead of fooling around with character's skill levels
(doubling, tripling, etc.), why not look at it from another
perspective."

"Who is this?"

"Shut up.  Instead of modifying the task system, why not alter the
character generation & experience systems to make a modified task
system work.  By preventing characters from having such high stats in
the first place, you're half way there to preventing stats from
dominating your task rolls."

"Who is this!?!"

"Hasselhoff.  David Hasselhoff."

"ARGHHH!!!--"

That's when I woke up.

I'll try to gain some more insightful info tonight... maybe Yasmine
Bleeth has something to add :)

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: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 01:44:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Task System: Compromise Solution

eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch) wrote:

>Well, I *think* my proposal will combine the realism of KB2 and the
>simplicity of T41, and with a few changes to character generation give 
>us a set of Target Numbers and a Task System we'll like.

>Flat Stat+Skill *does* weight the skill more heavily than I thought it did

The Dex 7 Skill 4 vs the Dex 11 skill 1 still does not go away.  Stats+Skill
is biased against skills no matter how you cut it.

>due to the nature of the bell curves.  So, for simplicity I'd like to find
>a way to make it flat Stat+Skill work.  It *will* work, as long as the Stat
>forming the flat base isn't too high, and too high looks like 13+ to me and
>it's worse with lower numbers of dice (at 13, the Stat contributes 83% on
>3d and 44% on 4d..we aren't going to do much about the 3d, but for 4d and
>above I'd like to keep the base below 1/3). The best way to do this is to
>keep Stat levels from commonly inflating into double digits.  Put a cap of
>12 on them, and make it much harder to increase a high Stat than a low
>Stat.  Let the player and GM negotiate the "purchase" or "award" of
>temporary or artificially created Stat DM's to raise them (even above 12)
>in game play, but don't hand out 11's and 12's like candy to everybody...
>and T4/T41 does that.  Marc, your experience might not indicate
>that, but mine does.

>We could use some technique to double the skills (not triple..that's too
>much for Staggering and *really* Hopeless tasks) or increase the number of
>skills players get during CharGen. For simplicity, I'm for increasing the
>number of skills.  If we don't increase the Target Number's to *quite* the
>number as might seem right, it also encourages the addition of DM's for
>Tools, Teams, and so on...and Marc it seems you *like* that.
>This means changing CharGen in two ways:  putting the Cap on Stats (I
>suggest rolling above your current Stat on a 2d6 to improve..and if the
>player wastes a skill roll trying, then tough...life's tough.  Instead of
>giving automatic EDU bonuses for completing advanced schooling give some
>additional skill rolls or maybe automatic increases in skills like
>Research, Perception, or Instruction.), and increasing the number of Skills
>(I suggest increasing the number of "childhood/background" skills by 3 
>or 4 and giving 6 skills/term rather than 4.  The 6 could be 4 career 
>oriented and 2 free choice.)

>These changes are minimal, easy to implement, don't violate the feel of
>Traveller, and give Target Numbers I think can live with.

>Comments?

In a word *Yuck!* I like this idea even less than the current T4 system
(and that's really saying something). 

Keeping the skill system simple at the expense of making everything else
more annoying and more complicated is IMHO hardly a good idea.  I don't
see that your system gains anything and it just makes things messier and
more complicated.  Artificial stat caps, doubling the number of skills
gained in char gen, ugh! 

I for one, love the new char gen sequence Marc has developed, and think
its the best I've seen for *any* version of Traveller.  Let's not wreck it
to try to make a "better" task system

One of the things I like about T4 is that skills have the same value as in
CT and MT, so that you don't have to convert all the old scenarios and
sourcebooks.  Doubling the number of skills PC's receive would eliminate
this advantage and make T4.1 a horrible mess. 

Please, Marc, whatever you decide, don't use this idea.


- -John Snead jsnead@netcom.com

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 11:13:15 MET
From: "Volker A. Greimann" <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
Subject: Re: A Plea to Marc Miller

- -> It should be clear that I am CONSIDERING everyting and anything,including
Hey, that's more than we could hope!
- -> abandoning tasks altogether, reverting to MT, using KB, using the posted
NO! Tasks should remain. Reverting to MT, though, seems exellent ;-)
- -> system, using a hybrid, and just throwing up my hands in 
- -> frustration.
No don't do that... I am sure there is a compromise between the lines 
somewhere... Maybe the TML-Vote wil make hings clearer!
Ad Astra,
V.A.G.       
- ------  Volker A. Greimann, also known as: Grei5001@uni-trier.de  ----
- -- Am Weidengraben 86,C6 - 54296 Trier - Germany - T+F: +49651148846 -
- ------- check out: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/4061 --------
- ---- Student of Law, Gamer, Illuminatus Primus, Slayer of Windows95 --

- -----  "Don't hold me up: I am just barely ahead of insanity!!!" -----

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1463
***********************************
