Traveller-digest       Monday, June 23 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1464



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: A Task Idea (Long)
Re: Roll for Skills
Re: Vote Count
RE:Yet more task stuff
Merrick Burkhardt's Task system (longish)
LoPop Criteria
RE task system
Re: Anomalies stuff
Re: Deckplans
Re: Solicited Opinions on Traveller
Re: Imperial recruitment practices
Re: ...and now for something completely different...
T4 tasks, again (sorry)
OS Choice
Tasks etc.

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 05:32:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: pawn@CAM.ORG (Glenn Grant)
Subject: Re: A Task Idea (Long)

Eris, your analysis of KBv2.0 is totally messed up: you're under the
mistaken impression that Ken's system uses the same number of dice for each
task as your CTS system. It does not.

Your system:                              KBv2.0:

>1d6 Easy                                   2D
>2d6 Average                                3D
>3d6 Difficult                              4D
>4d6 Formidable                             5D
>5d6 Staggering                             6D
>6d6 Hopeless (Impossible if you must)      7D

Which explains your earlier mis-statement that Ken's system was even easier
on high-stat characters than T4. Which it isn't, as you'll discover if you
do a correct analysis.

(BTW, your tables are also confusing because you left in 'CTS' where it
should say 'KB2' - as in the third chart below...)

> Skill-1                                                                
>   T41  Char+1    2d6     CTS  Char+(1*2)  2d6    CTS  Char+(1*3)  2d6  
>   Char Target  Percent   Char Target    Percent  Char Target    Percent
>   --------------------   ----------------------  ----------------------
>    2      3       8%      2      4       17%      2      5       28%   
>    4      5      28%      4      6       42%      4      7       58%   
>    5      6      42%      5      7       58%      5      8       72%   
>    7      8      72%      7      9       83%      7     10       92%   
>    9     10      92%      9     11       97%      9     12      100%   
>   12     13     100%     12     14      100%     12     15      100%   

I hope nobody is persuaded that KBv2.0 is broken as a result of reading
these incorrect charts. Having play-tested and analysed T4, T4.1, KBv1.1,
KBv2.0, and several other systems, I think Ken's system works best. We're
using it now in Derroch's campaign, and it works just fine. I much prefer
the probabilities it produces to any of the other proposed systems.

The only potential flaw with KBv2.0, I think, is that it involves up to
seven dice; at 6D or 7D, the probabilities are weighted very much toward
the average range. I feel this is a minor problem compared to the flaws in
the other systems that have been suggested.

Seven dice _is_ a bit much. But it only seems excessive in comparison to
older games such as CT and MT. Today's younger players are weened on such
dice-heavy systems as Star Wars, Champions, and Storyteller; somehow I
suspect they are less likely than older CT fans to balk at the number of
dice in KBv2.0.

Eris, please re-post your tables with corrected headings and KBv2.0
probabilities. At first glance, I think your CTS compares favourably to
T4.1, but I suspect that, if you correct the figures, you'll find that
Kbv2.0 is better than both. At least in terms of the probabilities it
produces.

 + GMG +

PS: what does the 'C' in CTS stand for?

    -----------------------Glenn Grant-----------------------  
                         <pawn@cam.org>
    Web: <http://helios.physics.utoronto.ca:8080/ggrant.html>
"Nature abhors normality. It can't go too long without a mutant."
                        --Dr Blockhead

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 11:43:51 MET
From: "Volker A. Greimann" <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
Subject: Re: Roll for Skills

- -> The problem with rolling for skills is the same as the problem of people
- -> dying during character generation...some people get short changed for no real
- -> benefit.
- -> 
- -> Rolling for skills makes some people come up short for no real benefit.
However, this system put characters not generated with T4 at a clear 
disadvantage, skill-levelwise! In MT Adv CharGen, the Average of 
Levels gained per term was about 3, in T4 it's 4-5.
This devalues skill levels, something i don't like.
Some might see a year without a skill a being shortchanged, i see it 
as fat. Sometimes you just don't learn anything new. Sometimes, life 
stinks. Chargen should more realistic in this way

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!!!" -----

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 12:12:43 MET
From: "Volker A. Greimann" <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
Subject: Re: Vote Count

Voting for T4.1 with revisions or variants thereof:
Marc Miller
A.S.Lilly
Phil Kitching
Tim Reynolds
Simon Turner
Andrew Vallance
Mike Lee
Leroy WL Guatney
J.P.
- -9
( some of these state that it can't stand as it is though)


Voting for KBv2.0 (or other KB variants or similar systems) were:
- -11
Kenneth Bearden
Peter Miller Dedly
Richard Hough
Kelly St.Clair
Jeff Norton
VolantZep
James W. Lindsay
SD Mooney (willing to Accept KBvXX, prefers MT)
dmcinne                 (ditto!)
Michael Galligan
Martin FC Pickett

Voting for a system along the lines of MT (or variants thereof):
(or just preferring it!)
- -17
Volker A. Greimann
Carlos Alos Ferrer
Andrew Akins
Nick Munn
2drapers
Dave Scott
RFXn
Rob Prior
Franklin Cain
Vanya
John Snead
David P Summers
Ryan Dooley
SD Mooney
Bob Sanders
Ola Agren
dmcinne
Victor Holzrichter

TNE-like D20 system
- -1
Harold Hale


Other votes generally in favor of change (no specific system)
- -11
Jeffry Miller
John Wood
jwbrewer
Mark Ayers
Neil McGurk
Michael Peters
Paul Owensby
Marc Bradley
Scott Ellsworth
William F. Horstman
Eris Redoch
Victor Raymond

49 votes tallied!
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!!!" -----

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 12:21:05 MET
From: "Volker A. Greimann" <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
Subject: RE:Yet more task stuff

- -> 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..........
Who wouldn't like to take THAT trip? Altough Marc did say something 
along the lines of working on Flashback from time to time!
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!!!" -----

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 11:08:42 +0100
From: Phil Kitching <Philk@btinternet.com>
Subject: Merrick Burkhardt's Task system (longish)

>From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
<snip>
>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.
>
<snip>
Everyone seems to be posting task systems, so after a weekend spent working
out an alternative that I could actually, use, I read the digests and find
that Merrick has already proposed it:-( (or should it be :-)?)

The problem that I always had with the MT task system was visualising task
difficulty - is brain surgery formidable or impossible? All I know is that
you need a good surgeon, about skill 5. Preferably one with a decent dex.

Taking the medical skill as an example:

Medic-0	Apply sticking plaster, mop brow:)
Medic-1	First Aid
Medic-2	Nurse
Medic-3	Experinced Nurse/Doctor
Medic-4	Experienced Doctor
Medic-5	Specialist
Medic-6	Noted in field
Medic-7	Name known across the Sector (not in M0:)

(For CT, there would be fewer skill levels and less ambiguity about what
 each meant.)

To perform a task that you ought to be able to do is 2d6 vs stat (ie bandage
a wound is first aid, thus medic-1. Surgery needs an experienced doctor, thus
medic-4.)

Roll one extra die for each level missed, one less die for each extra skill
level.

So a nurse does first aid on 1d6 and surgery on 4d6.

If you don't like dice buckets, you automatically fail tasks requiring more
than 4 dice (or more than 3 dice, or more than 5.)

If you need less than 1 die you automatically succeed (or roll 1d3 if you
bought some to play T4.0 :-)

The target characteristic should depend on the task - eg surgery on DEX,
diagnosis on EDU, research on INT.

If an action can be done several ways (eg diagnosing a disease you haven't
seen
before: EDU to know all the variants of a disease
    or: INT to recognise the similarities to a existing disease)
Then you roll on the better of the two stats.

If an action has several requisites (eg diagnosing a disease no one has seen
before: EDU to know all the variants of a disease
   and: INT to recognise the similarities to a existing disease)
Then you roll on the worse of the two stats.

There are three solutions to SS/SF:

#1 Roll three sixes for SF (the plus point with this system is that with the
   stat capped to 15 and not many DMs being used, you don't get SF on
   otherwise successful rolls.)
   Roll all ones for SS (if you roll no dice then all successes are SS)

#2 Roll the dice one at a time (or use different coloured dice, eg Red,
   Orange, Yellow...) until you exceed the target number. The more dice
   you roll the better the success.

Phil

ps as much as I like alternate systems for variety, I'd still prefer Marc's
T4.1 system to be published because I don't want a published system that
multiplies the skills or divides the stats.
I can't see how you could publish an alternate system on a sidebar - it
would be very confusing for anyone who had not followed the great task
system debate. And in any case, which would you choose?
Besides, I've already bought a set of d3:-)
- --
  Philk@btinternet.com (don't blame BT for any of this, they only pay me:)
  Interested in a wargames show in Colchester, Essex UK?
  http://www.btinternet.com/~salvo

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 11:42:57 GMT0
From: terry.williams@luton.ac.uk
Subject: LoPop Criteria

I'm putting together a PE play aid in the form of a C++ program - I can find
prerequisites for all the trade codes except LoPop (which doesn't appear in t4
but does in PE). Can someone help - reply in E-mail so as not to bore the
list with stuff they already know.

Terry

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 14:12:05 -0800
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@asylumbbs.com>
Subject: RE task system

Summers@Alum.MIT.edu Said:

>
>>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.
>

BUT A 7 is Joe Average!!!, Not Jack-be-clutzy!


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.
>

Well, Please KEEP SOME task system. Reverting to MT wouldn't bug me...
Although I do like the "tasking" level that was added in t4.

MT's task system can be made t-4 compliant easily: atts count 1/3d
attribute (Drop Frac), skill counts whole. Difficulty Scale:

Easy	Avg	Dif	Form	Task	Imp
4+	8+	12+	16+	20+	24+	Rolled on 2d6+ mods
						Crit Fail is miss by 4+
						Crit succ is make by 4+

make variable durations optional. The WHOLE of MT's task system took 4
pages of Charts! It was memorable, functional, and fun. And it worked. With
Extra Time, most of the higher task level became accomplishable by
moderately skilled characters. It covered different levels of failure and
Mishap.

Also, since MT did not TIE skills to one attribute, GM's kept flexibility.
Too much TNEism is creeping into T4... remember That Not All Uses Of A
Skill Use The Same Attribute

The multi-dice approach is WRONG, I say, WRONG, though, as the any schmoe
with an average attribute and Level-0 in skill has the ability to succeed
at ANY TASK. THis does not model reality. I cannot jump to grab a 12'
ledge, while I know others who can, I lack certain cahracteristics they
have. But under T4, even using KB2.0 Anyone CAN (althogh probably may not)
succeed.

T4 as is is far too epic in nature; it is too easy to succeed overall, too
easy to critiaclly fail, and far to wimpy in combat (The 3D limit in combat
MUST GO!!!) It goes beyond the epic-ness of TNE...



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

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 13:18:18 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Anomalies stuff

Bruce wrote:
>Because, #$@%^!$@ IT, finding a few TL-14 relics does _not_ mean that you
>can take them and press on to TL-14 right away. Finding a TL-14 Vaccsuit
>isn't going to help you make TL-14 computers, or Jump 4, or a lighter
>Gauss rifle, or a PGMP, after all.

No, but finding a TL 14 relic proves that someone once knew how to build it.
Finding a shipload of TL 14 relics implies that they were more than just
prototypes (though they _may_ have been; note my careful use of 'prove' as
opposed to 'imply'). Also, TL 14 relics implies the existence of TL 13
knowledge, and that the TL 13 knowledge existed for some time before the
TL 14 knowledge was developed. The longer a technology is known, the more
likely it is to disseminate. Finding several shiploads of relics scattered 
across Charted Space also implies that the knowledge was once widespread.
The more widespread a technology was, the more unlikely it is that it could
disappear completely (and before someone trots out the Dark Ages, let me
just point out that much of the lost Roman technology was, in fact, not
permanently lost.). If the knowledge is confined to just one planet then
it may disappear in some huge catastrophe. But if the knowledge is widely
disseminated, it just won't be permanently lost. And if you think
reverse-engineering an artifact will boost your knowledge, just wait till
you see what unearthing a few buried libraries full of technical manuals
will do.

Think about it. An atomic war may very well hurl the survivors back to TL 0,
but do you really think that even a full-scale war would destroy all the
books in the world? And many of the RoM planets didn't devolve 
catastrophically (some of them didn't devolve at all).

Not that unearthing libraries would be needed at all. Sylea itself was an 
important planet during the RoM. Don't you think the Sylean universities 
would keep up their technical libraries? So if they don't have any TL 13 
information then it's because they never recieved any. That would do to 
explain the lack of cutting-edge RoM TL, but if cutting-edge RoM TL is 14, 
then much TL 13 knowledge would be common. And thus available on Sylea.

Of course, knowing how to do something and being able to afford to build
the factories to build it is not the same thing (That is, IMO, the only
reasonable way to explain why so many planets have inferior TLs. They do
have the knowledge, but can't afford to implement it). But surely that
excuse is a bit thin for the premier planet of a large interstellar state?
Sylea should be able to afford to implement anything they knew how to
implement, right? 

It's note the relics themselves so much, it's what they imply...
   


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 12:49:30 +0100
From: Bruce E J Lewis <bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Deckplans

At 12:51 23/06/97 +1000, Jason Anderson wrote:
>>	Noticed a minor inconsistency straight away; on the back it says
>>there are
>>nine adventures when I found ten inside.
>
>Errr, no. There are nine adventures, and one ship description (the Raptor).
>I agree it would be nice to have the deckplans for the ship.
>
	Ah, I must have just counted the chapter numbers. Apologies to Marc and
fellow crew in that case...

	See ya...


Bruce E J Lewis - mailto:bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk
Telephone - 0956-506527

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 12:49:34 +0100
From: Bruce E J Lewis <bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Solicited Opinions on Traveller

At 03:20 23/06/97 -0400, GypsyComet@aol.com wrote:
>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 think that Pocket Empires should have been laid out much better too.
Someone mentioned that the tables are all at the back, and don't have their
relevant DM's listed next to them; that is all hidden in the text.

	So, as I'm reading it for the first time, I decided to photocopy the
tables, so that as I come across some interesting points of note in the
text that relate to them, like DM's and stuff, I can then scribble those
DM's on the photocopied tables as I go along. I'm sure this will save many
hours of "I'm sure it's plus 2 on page 23, or was it between 45 and 56?"

	Oh, and they make perfect bookmarks too!

	See ya...


Bruce E J Lewis - mailto:bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk
Telephone - 0956-506527

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 12:49:32 +0100
From: Bruce E J Lewis <bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Imperial recruitment practices

At 01:57 23/06/97 -0400, VolantZep@aol.com wrote:
>Anybody read "Bill, the Galatic Hero" by Harry Harrison?  Great stuff.
>
	Yes! The only man who could shake hands with himself because the surgeons
fitted him with a right arm when he lost his left one!

	However, I find some of Harry Harrison's stuff rather excellent; the
'World' series I would find particularly pertinent to Traveller -
Homeworld, Wheelworld and Starworld (I think that's the right order)

	In Wheelworld, the colonists on a planet are only able to inhabit the
northern hemisphere for half the local year, and then they must migrate to
the southern hemisphere for the other half of the year; then they must go
back ad infinitum.

	This is because the planet's axial tilt / peculiar orbit (I can't remember
which or what) makes one hemisphere far too hot to live in for half a year.
The people there solved this by building a railway line between the two
hemispheres, and the preparation for the journey and the journey itself is
a good and enjoyable story.

	As a sideline the people note that they appear to be cut off from stellar
civilisation, which prompts confrontation sort of stuff etc. Worth checking
out.

	See ya...


Bruce E J Lewis - mailto:bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk
Telephone - 0956-506527

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 06:03:07 -0700
From: "Tim.Smith@bbs.logicnet.com" <tim.smith@bbs.logicnet.com>
Subject: Re: ...and now for something completely different...

On Sun, 22 Jun 1997, Larry Hadley wrote

> On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, Roderick Darroch Elliott wrote:
>
> >       Does anybody have a clue as to the origins of the term "Munchkin"
> > as used to describe annoying roleplayers?  Does anyone know the name of the
> > person who first screamed "You [expletive deleted]...  [expletive
> > deleted]... umm... MUNCHKIN!!" and in what circumstances he did so?
> 
>   The exact point of origin of the term is lost in gaming/internet
> antiquity, but obiviously describes 14-year old powergamers in all their
> glory! ;) 
Sorry, a clue is all you're likely to get. I vaguely recall the term comes from either "mental munchkin" 
referring to Baum's characters' stature or "munch-kin" referring to pac-man (!). Check the Space 
Gamer/Adventure gaming back issues if you can, somewhere around 1980-85; they used to run lists of gamer types 
in a lot of issues.

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 12:55:40 +0100
From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: T4 tasks, again (sorry)

Allow me to summarise:

1) Marc is very keen on the skill + stat approach, still; there is 
some real-world logic to it as well.

2) Many TMLers feel that *given the current character generation 
methods* stats are over-rated by a fair bit relative to skills.

3) There are a number of suggestions for skills reducing the 
difficulty of tasks (or increasing it).  This is based on the idea 
that skill is more than "enhancement of natural ability", which is a 
CT idea still manifest in T4 in places (Medic-2 bonuses, etc.)

4) All the task systems have problems.

5) All things being equal, the D3 should go.


I am going to accept 1) as a starting point.  Marc has good reasons 
for his decisions, and it's his call to make.  The Great Task System 
Debate (TGTSD) is therefore redefined as: how can T4.1 be adjusted to 
take the other points into account?

5): either round up the half-die (so harder tasks are D3 or D6 
harder, and the scale is 2D - 6D) or keep the rolls as per Ref's 
Screen.  It's easy enough to change this as a house rule, so maybe it 
doesn't matter so much.

2): It will be much more work to rejig the character generation, and 
that is quintessential Traveller, IMO.  A characteristic cap of 12 is 
a major change also.  So I'll stick to solutions which use the rest 
of the system as is, where possible.  In practice, that's solutions 
of type 3).

3): I strongly support the idea of a skill representing more than 
"training in use of natural facilities"; I believe it represents 
facets of knowledge and understanding at conscious and unconscious 
levels.  A medical-4 doctor, however poor a surgeon, can still *teach* 
medicine to high levels of skill.  I therefore reject any suggestion 
that skill + stat is the only determinant of task success by a 
character: there will be situations where the additional levels of 
ability are necessary.

This leads to the suggestions of changing task difficulty for 
different skill levels (in which I include making certain tasks 
require a minimum skill level).  The trouble with these solutions is 
they are horribly non-linear, especially those which lead to an 
improvement every 2 levels.  (Suddenly PCs develops skills at odd 
levels only...)  Furthermore, minimum skill levels are not in the 
spirit of existing tasks like those in PE.

People have talked about task DMs for environment.  This is the point 
on which MT is utterly superior to T4 as published: it was 
specifically designed for "adverse conditions" to make a task one 
level more difficult instead of having a huge table of plusses and 
minuses for success.  That was a brilliant idea which I don't find in 
T4 -- there were (to my dismay) huge tables of modifiers.  That's a 
big minus to playability IMHO.

So here's my idea:

Tasks are perfomed as usual in T4.x: roll under skill + stat + DMs

*Unfavourable DMs are cancelled out by skill*, so if a skill-2 
character has a -4 DM, skill reduces it to -2.

Optional: The maximum improvement is to halve the DM.

Rationale: skill represents widespread familiarity, including lots of 
experience in a variety of conditions.  A high-dex character may be 
an extremely good shot with a rifle under ideal conditions; military 
types would be much better at events like "keeping rifle clean in the 
field, running 100 m then shooting at well-armed opposition in the 
fog".  They have the experience to correct for problems.

Consequences: in ideal conditions, youth and ability can win out.  
(Research labs may be closer to ideal in this respect than most.)  In 
the nasty, dirty real world, experience and skill counts more highly.
This emphasises the distinction between tasks which are inherently 
difficult and tasks which are made so by circumstance: the former is 
controlled by Difficulty Level, the latter by DMs.

If most task DMs are negative, then this may make tasks too easy for 
skilled characters, and difficulty levels might need be stepped up 
slightly.  If large negative DMs are relatively rare, this won't be 
necessary.


Effects:  Gunnar (rifle-4, stat 6) vs. Dex (rifle-1, stat-12).
Competition shooting, Dex is much better (+3, or about one difficulty 
class).  If it's windy or the 'scope is misaligned (DM -2), there's 
very little change (or none, using the optional rule).  If it's dark, 
windy, and a pinpoint hit is required (DM -9, for a double-damage 
shot under those conditions), suddenly the two are on level terms.
That patrol on Shudushaam has given Gunnar all too much experience in 
this kind of thing...

Optional rule effects: there are some possible abuses, like always 
shooting for double damage under good conditions, never bothering 
with a shoulder stock, etc..  I think these are features rather than 
bugs, but until I test the system at the weekend I won't know for 
sure.  The optional rule eliminates the possibility, and means a -1 
DM always means -1, not 0, if you do the rounding that way.


Role-playing effects:  You let Dex (medical-1) start the operation, 
but if complications develop experienced ol' Doc (medical-5) will 
take over or give instructions.

Characters with really high skill become effective gunslingers (in 
the Wild West sense) whereas mere mortals can "only" shoot straight.


Addition to existing systems:

Bolts right on to T4.x

Would improve KBv2.0 if weighting became stat + 2*skill and this 
rule was applied -- reduces "superhuman" effects of highly-skilled 
characters.  IMHO.

Less useful for MT (which uses fewer DMs, in any case)


Nick


Dr. Nick Munn, Dept. of Information Studies, University of Sheffield
Tel. (0)114 222 2673, email n.s.munn@sheffield.ac.uk

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 03:43:27 -0800
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@asylumbbs.com>
Subject: OS Choice

John Wood wrote:

> I was wondering what computers/operating systems people here use?  I've
> seen quite a few mentions of Macs and only a few Unix/Windows/Dos.
>
> If you *do* answer this, can we please be careful to avoid any OS wars.

MacOS 7.5.5 on 68040 system, with 20 MB ram, and only 260 MB HD. BTW, I can
get 7.5.5 running iun less than 4 MB WITH many add-ons

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

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 03:38:01 -0800
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@asylumbbs.com>
Subject: Tasks etc.

From: VolantZep@aol.com
>
> Stat division: I can live with it, I guess, *if the character sheets
> and rules are set up to make it easy*.  After all, MT used it
> successfully (or did you all just fudge it a bit - be honest, I'm
> curious).

Quite true... Especially if we go the mega route of not refiguring mods
DURING combat, but after or during lulls.

>Here's a simple thought...why not make the stats lower at the outset and the
>skills higher at the outset and no multiplying or dividing is necessary.
> Just set you DMs based on straight numbers and multiple dice for
>increasingly harder tasks.  I haven't taken the time to work out numbers but
>perhaps Kenneth could devise a new plan that would actually fix the system
>without having to adjust anything...nows yer chance!

<rabid>Hey! NO! Changing the stats that way would violate one of Marc's
rules for T4: Stuff from t4 should be roughly compatable with other
editions... TNE only lowered them by 1 point. Anything worse would be new
dice roll types...aand just not Traveller!!! </rabid>

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

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1464
***********************************
