Traveller-digest       Monday, June 23 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1467



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Task System: Compromise Solution
Re: Merrick Burkhardt's Task system (longish)
Re:T4 Task rationale (LONG)
Re: T4 Task Rationale
Re: Yet more task stuff.
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1465
Re: Task System: Compromise Solution
Re: Pilots and Dex
Re: Hardware, firmware, software
Re: Deckplan Question?
Re: Suggestion for Task System Improvemet
Re: M.B.'s Task System
On Tasks, Skills and Different Attributes
Re: Deckplan Question?
Excuse me?
Comparisons with old rules
Re: Being Honest.

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 97 16:21:31 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Task System: Compromise Solution

On 06/23/97 at 01:44 AM,  "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com> said:

>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.

My *gut* feeling is to agree with you, but I don't think *any* system
similar to Marc's and Ken's is going to completely solve the high Stat
problem.  But that problem only becomes sever with a *high* Stats, that's
why they should be RARE.  You don't have to cap them, just don't give them
out like candy!

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

What I'm proposing here is a compromise system between Marc's and Ken's, so
I didn't want to go into other kinds of solutions.  I also want to see what
Marc and Ken have to say about it...your yuck not included. ;->

>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

You don't want *more* skills?  You want to allow high Stats..even encourage
them with automatic EDU-11 on graduation from grad school? You also want to
complain about the descrepency between high Stats and low skills?  

>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. 

The skill ranges from CT and MT don't exist any more, John.  In T4 the
skills have already crept higher, and with Marc's new Character Generation
they are creeping higher still.  


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

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 21:15:50 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Merrick Burkhardt's Task system (longish)

On Mon, 23 Jun 1997 14:10:55 +0100, Anders Backman wrote:

> I suggest the following based more or less on your (Phil) ideas:
> 
> Pick names for tasks/skills that mean something in both contexts:
> (Can somebody come up with something less derogatory than bad,
> inexperienced perhaps?)
> Skill lvl       Skillname (code)     Taskname (code)
> =========       =========            ========
> No skill        Unskilled (US)       -
> Skill-0         Extremely Bad (EB)   Extremely easy (EE)
> Skill-1         Very bad (VB)        Very easy (VE)
> Skill-2         Bad (B)              Easy (E)
> Skill-3         Normal (N)           Normal (N)
> Skill-4         Good (G)             Hard (H)
> Skill-5         Very good (VG)       Very hard (VH)
> Skill-6         Extremely good (EG)  Extremely hard (EH)
> 
> Roll 2D6 <= attribute.
> +1D6 for each difficulty level above skill
> -1D6 for each skill level below attribute
> If the number of dice is 0 or less success as well as SS is automatic.

Hmmm... so a DEX=7 character, with skill-6, performing an Extremely
hard (EH) task, would *automatically* succeed.  The two dice he would
normally roll would not be increased since the difficulty level does
not exceed his skill level.  They would, in fact, be reduced to only
one die, due to the fact that the skill level of 6 is one less than
the character's DEX of 7.  Therefore, he'd be rolling only 1d6, trying
to roll less than or equal to his DEX rating of 7... automatic
success.

> If dieroll <= attribute/2 (round up) then SF

This doesn't sound right, since the above example would translate into
wanting to roll as low as possible, without rolling too low.  This
might be confusing since each die roll would have to be judged whether
or not it was inside this variable window between success and SF.

The above example would then have a 0% chance at SS, a 33% at success,
a 0% chance at failure, and a 67% chance at SF.  It is the lack of a
possible simple failure that bothers me.

Me thinks this task system needs a bit more work (or am I missing
something :)

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 14:40:39 -0800
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re:T4 Task rationale (LONG)

Mon, 23 Jun 1997 00:29:22 +0100,  SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
>>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.

>I still disagree - I'm an engineer, and I've seen new people with talent
>come up with a brilliant idea or solution, but the actual implementation of
>the solution has required the advice or guidance of someone older/more
>experienced. Experience wins in the long game. I agree that in pure science
>the upstaging is more likely to happen.

And I've seen a lot of old hands insist on "guiding" a younger
person who could easily have handled the sistuation on their own
(and make no mistake, I am an old hand more than a young turk).
I guess is come down to what I said before.  It not a matter
of "right" or "wrong", it's a matter of things just happening
to be the way, or not, that one happens to see them.

>Let me explain - I said that the 3 extra points of attribute on the stat 10
>character accounts for a 100% of the skill value (3 in the example). In
>other words, the Stat 7 character would need a skill of 6 to match the Stat
>10 character. That means that the 3 points of attribute = skill level 3 =
>skill/experience of a MD/professional.

Um no. A stat 7 person needs a skill of 3 to match a stat 10
person.  Also, the stats go off of a minimumt that is 3 points
higher and the additional fact is that stats are non-linear
so that very few people start from a minumum stat.

>Dex 7 is *average* on 2D6. Yes, you can augment it with character
>generation. But I've yet to see players doing that heavily. Skills always
>seem to be what the players want out of generation, in my games anyway. If
>Dex 7 is a clutz in your game you're playing space opera IMO. I'm not.
>Maybe that's where we *really* differ.

The point is that a stat of 7 is, even if most stats are only
augmented a step or two, slightly below average.  This is
seriously mediocre talent and is, at best, barely adequate
for a professions, like doctor, that requires some ability.
He _is_ going to take a lot of traing just to catch up to
someone who has some real talent.  If someone had a stat
of 3 or 4 I would say they should _never_ catch up.

>>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.

>I disagree. Looking back at CT/MT a high skill was 3 or 4. The attributes
>were in the same range. The range of effect of the attributes was less. To
>give effective opposition in T4 the referee has to intervence in the NPC's
>generation more often. High attributes and low skills in T4 give high
>overall ability in many skills. Lower attribute influence and the same
>skills give you professionals in a few skills. You play Skywalker, I'll
>play Deckard. Difference in emphasis again.

I still don't see this.  If you use the character generation
system to make up NPC's (not what I would do) then you are
going to get similar characters (subject to the changes of
luck).  If you make them up you are going to just give them
similar skill and stat levels.  There is not game on
Earth where you can't make up NPC's similar to the PC's

>>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.

>Making skills more important by making attributes less important, and
>keeping the current generation system (bugfixed, naturally) means that
>power gamers can only really be good in 1 or 2 areas. In T4 high stats make
>you a superhero and IMO encourage power gaming.

It always seems that if you argue out any gaming issue long
enough.  Someone will start claiming that the other way is
more munchkin.  I've seen this same claim put forward for
systems that emphasis skills over stats.  What happens is
that the power gamers make character that are uniformly
mediocre in every stat and just pump one or two skills up.
Then instead of having a universe where everyone is talented
but nobody is trained, you have a universe where, for some
reason, a bunch of no-talents were trained for all the
important missions.

We could argue about which is worse, but the bottom line
is that if skills depend on stats in any way, then the
munchkins will find the best tradeoff and exploit it.

> Fundamentally, I don't think that
>the range of the attribute generates playable target numbers in the T4 task
>system.

I agree that a stat increase should be harder to get than a
skill increase (it is a more fundamental change in the
character).  But that calls for tweaing the character
generation system.  Not overhaulling the task system
(which I would do, but that's just because I don't
like the variable dice scheme...)

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 14:47:47 -0800
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale

Mon, 23 Jun 1997 12:41:18 +1000, Jason Anderson <midnight@kagi.com>
>Just one point I wanted to comment on. Dex 7 is *average* for humans -
>hardly a clutz. PC's are likely to have a higher Dex level (depending on
>how you let them generate their stats of course).

Well, a Dex 7 is that average rolled, before any additional
character advancement.  That means that  a stat of 7 is
below average.  I would say that someone on the clutzy
side of average is not doctor material..

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 17:45:57 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Yet more task stuff.

>I also think, to a great extent, we're underestimating these hypothetical
>14-year olds who are buying these hypothetical RPG's...they're not, as a
>rule stupid or unable to grasp complex rules...if they were, they wouldn't
>be buying RPG's in the first place...

I don't know, we've already been told by The Boss that his group of 12 to
16 year olds couldn't grasp picking a &#^$&@ number between 1 and
366... 

<Codger mode on>

I remember sitting down w/ my friends in Jr. High and playing Web
and Starship, and Starfleet Battles, and Source of the Nile, etc., and not
having a hard time grasping the rules. Have our educational system and
the influx of Sega-bonics vs. literature created a group of potential new
players that we are going to have to dumb the rules WAY down for?

<Codger mode off>

**********************************************************
Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 15:53:51 +1200
From: "Steve Kuervers" <skuerver@compusmart.ab.ca>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1465

<< Marc wrote:
The problem is, as much as people may like TNE or Mega or CT, those systems
don't exist any more. There are no new publications for them, and
comparisons
to them don't work. The objective standard in T4 is that characters get
about
1 skill per year. And skill levels then reflect that idea.>>

~Delurking....

Well Marc... many of us have a lot invested in those older systems, and
new publications are continually being created... by the thousands of us
referee's who use them every day.  Sometimes you can change too much...

However on that note... I'm still up in the air as to what task system I
like best for T4.  Have used MT, am trying KBv2 this week, and haven't had
any great problems with the existing T4 system (haven't seen T4.1 yet...
waiting on sourcebook from distributor...)

BTW... well done everyone on a reasonable discussion.  It is great to see
some productive, friendly criticism from players and direct thoughtful
response from the authors.

skuerver@compusmart.ab.ca
Sometimes the simulation works...
and sometimes it simulates working...

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 15:13:11 -0800
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Task System: Compromise Solution

Mon, 23 Jun 1997 01:44:10 -0700 (PDT),  "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com>

>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.

Well, no. If you have most of the people coming out of
the stat generation (ie you acount for the fact that
stats are non-linear, and so don't have as big an
effective range) with numbers that vary just as much
as skill (ie skills are, say 0-6 and most of the
characters have stats in the 4-11 range.) then
skills and stat _are_ equally weighted.

The only reason Dex 7 and skill 4 vs Dex 11 and
skill 1 is seen as a problem is the desire to
see skill weighted more heavily than stats.  But
that is matter of personal opinion.

_______________________________________________________________
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 18:15:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: VolantZep@aol.com
Subject: Re: Pilots and Dex

In a message dated 97-06-23 14:28:31 EDT, you write:

<< 
 >>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.
 
 actually, I always use dex for action intensive, critical-that-you-hit-the-
 buttons-right-the-first-time tasks, in preference to other things. I know
 that even in flight sims, when the presure is off, int is more important;
 in  a cessna, int is vital EXCEPT when landing under bad weather; in
 combat, you hit the wrong button and *P*O*O*F*...
 
 I agree, that dex is not the vital factor it is in atmosphere... but then I
 run starship combat under a personal combat time-scale, using mega's combat
 rules (since no other traveller rulesetscales so nice). Since mega came
 out, I have been reluctant to use any other ruleset for personal or
 vehicular combat, and have fudged along witha fusion of MT combat system
 with BL diffmods. Under such a time scale, with the much shorter ranges
 from MT's "Starship Weapons" table in Player's, combat is generally at
 ranges under 5 km, and short. a few good jinking maneuvers are more
 important than long term planning at that scale.
 <<

Being a pilot I think I can safely say that it is not sop much a matter of
atmosphere as it is speed.  Jet aircraft require more Int than Dex.
 Dogfighting in a Jet is much different that a slow moving biplane.  There
just isn't that much "seat-of-the-pants" flying done in jet aircraft, its
mostly procedural and being able to memorize maneuvers and recreate them at
the proper time.  Much more mental than physical.  

If I lined up the guys in my pilot training class and asked you to pick the
best pilot by looking at them you would probably not pick the best guy until
you exhausted most of the class.  He was large, balding, overweight and
easygoing.  Although he looked nothing like Val Kilmer,  he is the proverbial
"Iceman", with a very sharp mind and steady nerves.  He was a Comp Sci major,
just as an aside.  What stat covers steady nerves?

Regards

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 18:18:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: VolantZep@aol.com
Subject: Re: Hardware, firmware, software

win95 for 2 years no complaints so far.

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 23:15:46 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Deckplan Question?

Two squares = 13.5 m3, based on a deck-to-deck height of 3 m.

Two squares = 1.5 x 3 x 3 = 1.5 x 9 = 13.5 m3

Thus a 100 T vessel has 200 squares on its deck plan.

Simon

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 17:23:41 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Suggestion for Task System Improvemet

Joul, Christopher wrote:
> 
> How about this as a suggestion to improve the weighting of skills vrs
> stats.
> 
> Keep the target number determination the same = Stat+Skill BUT, Cap the
> Target number to 7+2*Skill Level (since 7 is the average
> characteristic).

snipety do da.


> This has many advantages:-
> 
> 1) It's Simple!
> 
> 2) Restores the importance of skills over characteristics.
> 
> 3) Doesn't break existing the existing published system assumed in PE,
> GM screen etc...
> 
> 4) Reduces chance of success at high difficulties.
> 
> What do people think?

Why not just go with KBv2.0?  It does all you mention above AND is a
simpler fix.

Kenneth.

>

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 16:36:28 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: M.B.'s Task System

(I had to change the subject line---seeing my name in the subject
was getting kinda creepy :-)

Anyway, when I first threw this out (maybe I should go find FUDGE
and look at it since apparently it's similar) I suggested that one
way that I've set task levels is to just think to myself "Who is
this task impossible for?"  

By this I mean *really* impossible, not Impossible Task Level.

For something impossible by people with no skill at all:

That skill would be Impossible+1 on the task scale, then drop it by
1 level (1d6 per level) for each skill level.  I include skill-0 for
this.

Skill Level	Task Level
- -----------	----------
none		really impossible
0		Impossible
1		Stag
2		Form
3		Diff
etc.

Say a certain task is impossible for someone without some actual
skill.  Take a complicated neurosurgery proceedure, for example.
For this case the person needs skill-3 to even be familiar with the
existance of the task:

Skill Level     Task Level
- -----------     ----------
2			impossible (really)
3		Impossible Task
4		Stag.
5		Form.
6		Diff.
7		Ave

(note that in this example I'd allow DMs if the person had help, so
the surgery still might be a "Difficult" one for even an incredible
surgeon, but in normal conditions DMs will make it very likely a
success)

A good analog to the example above would be rock climbing.  We could
rate a free climb, barefoot, as Staggering, yet with DMs for shoes,
pro, and a partner on belay it might happen frequently without even
a fall.  Again, the task could either assume all the gear and get
called Average, or it could be baselined in such a way that the ref
adds in all the extra stuff as DMs.  I lean this way, personally.

It has the benefit, BTW, that it works with any task system's
mechanics.

- -Merrick

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 18:43:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Rob Dean <robdean@access.digex.net>
Subject: On Tasks, Skills and Different Attributes

I have already admitted to a MegaTraveller bias, but I _think_ the following
should be plausible under the later rules.

It seems to me like some skills would be controlled by different attributes
depending on what is being done.  To use Medical as an example:

Medical + Dex -- To perform surgery, where a steady hand is important.
Medical + Edu -- To diagnose an illness, where being well read in the
                 background literature is important.
Medical + Int -- To develop a treatment for a novel illness. (Maybe Edu,
                 would depend on how novel...)

Stretching a little --

Medical + Str -- To amputate a limb in an emergency with a single blow
                 from an ax to free someone from wreckage and pull him
                 out of a compartment before the air finishes leaking out
                 (or maybe to relocate a dislocated Virushi joint)
Medical + End -- To perform a grueling 20 hour operation without a break,
                 like an experimental brain transplant...
Medical + Soc -- To get a research grant from an Imperial noble...
                 (or, having paused in the middle of this for a discussion
                 with my wife, perhaps this is the "doctor at a cocktail
                 party" skill, which allows the doctor to distract a roomful
                 of people while his companions rifle the safe.)

Something to think about, in any case...

Rob Dean
robdean@access.digex.net
(The dinosaur stirs in his sleep!)

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 16:42:30 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Deckplan Question?

GAHUNTER wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> I was wondering if anyone can fix my confusion of an issue I have...? I
> was looking at the books to create my own deckplans and the first (green
> small book with all the original deckplans) book I have on the subject
> says each square represents 1.5m^3 and a cieling height is 3m so you need
> 2 squares on top of each other or => 6.75m^3
> 
> Now my first question is where did they derive 13.5m^3 (it indicated
> something about 4 squares?????).... what is wrong here or have I misread
> something???

*Two* 1.5 m squares = 6.75 * 2 = 13.5 m = 1 Displacement Ton

Some deckplans in Traders and Gunboats are *gasp* incorrect. Some plans
use 4x 1.5 m squares = 1 displacement ton. Most notably, the Empress
Marava is two times bigger than it should be.

<Plug> I've made correctly proportioned Deckplans for a Far Trader. Get
them on my website. </Plug>

> So if I had a 30ton vessel (small craft) this equals about 420m^3 volume
> or roughly 62 squares right?? now of course some of this is wasted
> space... but if I went by the book it says 14m^3 = 1ton and a 1.5m^3
> square is considered 1ton (right?) that would be 31 squares???

The first half of your paragraph is roughly correct... don't go by the
book, it is what seems to be confusing you. :)

Use this handy conversion guide:

TWO 1.5 m squares (~3 m height) = ONE displacement ton.
ONE 2 m square (~3.5 m deck height) = ONE displacement ton.
FOUR 1 m squares (~ 3.5 m deck height) = ONE displacement ton.

BTW, I like to use a deck height of 6 m for the cargo hold, so for a
Trader's large cargo hold ONE 1.5 m square = ONE displacement ton.

A 30 ton vessel would need about 60 1.5 m squares.

> Im confused could someone help me?

I hope I've cleared up your confusion.

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 97 17:53:01 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Excuse me?

On 06/23/97 at 04:17 AM,  "William F. Hostman" <aramis@asylumbbs.com> said:

>Eris and the "TNE Heretics" never were on par with CT/MT, and to them
>it may not be important... 

William, I find that remark insulting and provocative.  I wish to make a
special note disassociating myself from your attempt to include me in any
such group...if such exists.

I freely admit to being a "Traveller heretic", but this is a personal
choice *not* a group thing.  I'm absolutely and most specifically not a
"TNE", nor an "MT" nor a "CT" anything.  There are many things about TNE I
liked, many I didn't like, and an attitude from *some* people I couldn't
stand.  I say exactly the same about T4, MT, and CT, though there was less
of an "attitude" problem with CT.

My heresy has always been about attitude, not specific rules or background. 
I reject the notion that there is "One, and only one, true way to play
Traveller."  I don't believe that has *ever* been true, and, IMO, and never
will be true!  A GM has the right to use as many, as few, or no rules, from
any source, applied to any *background* and still call the game Traveller.

I say, that you can play the game in the published background, and if you
lack the time or imagination to develop your own, then you probably should,
or you can change one thing, several things or everything. That's your
option, and your right, and no one should give you a hard time about it
either way.  William, *that* is my herecy, make of it what you will!

IMO, there was much too much of the "one true way" attitude from the GDW
shepherds of TNE.  They had a "plot", a "storyline", that they were playing
out, and we could play along so long as we didn't step outside *their*
boundaries.  I didn't like that, and I continued to play in my own
universes.  I also bought very few of the TNE publications.  Why should I
when they were specific to a single storyline, in a single universe that I
wasn't using?

There was almost as much of that attitude from the MT people. Not the
*official* people, so much, as the self-appointed "guardians" of that thing
they called canon.  I didn't like that, either!  If you weren't playing out
their rebellion, on their star charts, with their major NPC, in their
offical scenerios, and their details then there was nothing for you.  As
the years went by, fewer and fewer of the MT publications were worth
buying, if you wanted to play elsewhere.

The original CT had it right.  Present some guidelines for play, a simple
suggested background and let the players and GM use their imaginations.  I
bought virtually everything published for CT, and still use it.

I hoped T4 would be more like CT, in that way.  It's not, but I'm use to
going my own way after 15 years.  So far, I've found some of the books
worth buying, but how soon will everything be specific to a single Milleu,
in a single storyline, in a single universe?

Will never mind!  You can't do anything about that, and perhaps there are
good economic reasons for all those, IMO, bad choices GDW made and IG may
be making.  Part of being a heretic is being out of step with the
mainstream, and playing in non-standard universes is my choice, so be it.

>...but to those who kept the flame for over a decade, 

Ha!  Traveller is 20 years old this year, and I've been playing it since
1977.  If you want to consider *Traveller* the flame, then I've been
keeping it since the beginning.  If, OTOH, you consider the flame to be
"One history, one rule-set, one background, one way..or no way." then it
should be extinguished, post haste!  That's my opinion, and my herecy. You
can agree or disagree, that is your right.

If what I wrote above offended you, or anyone else, then I apologize for
the offense, but not for the opinion.  I don't evangalize my ideas very
often or very much, like some people <g>, but I *will* express them.

>changing the value of skill level x is going to be annoying.

William, that has already happened in T4.  Two is no longer an Average
skill level, it's three or four.  Four is no longer an Expert, that's gone
up to five or six.  Even Marc is talking about Demolitions-9, for heaven's
sake! <g>

CT is gone, MT is gone, and so is TNE.  Embrace the change, and move
on....or get use to being a heretic.  It's not so bad once you get use to
it. <G>


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

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 19:30:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Rob Dean <robdean@access.digex.net>
Subject: Comparisons with old rules

Marc Miller (THE Marc Miller!) writes:

> The problem is, as much as people may like TNE or Mega or CT, those systems
> don't exist any more. There are no new publications for them, and comparisons
> to them don't work.

As much as I hate to disagree with one of the respected creators of our
favorite game, I have to take issue with this.  Those systems _do_ exist
in the form of all the copies of them that were printed, and are still
circulating in the gaming community.*  While it is true that there are no
new commercial publications specifically for those rules systems, I think
that enough was published for any of the previous game systems to permit
a gamemaster with a judiciously gathered collection to have fun for the
remainder of their natural lifespan.  Traveller has always been a game
involving a high level of "do it yourself" activity, and moving from that
to a system with no current commercial support is not an unthinkable step
for a referee with some experience.

The practical implication of this is that there will continue to be a
base of users of the older systems, and anyone starting up with the game
now is likely to run into users (or former users) of the older rules 
systems.  It would seem that comparisons are almost inevitable.

I hate to start a philosophy discussion when I won't be able to check my
email for a couple of days, but there it is...

Rob Dean
robdean@access.digex.net
(Traveller since '77)

*Speaking of previous editions, does anyone need a copy of the Deluxe boxed
edition of CT?  I have a spare that I acquired as part of a package deal while
completing my collection. Send email...

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 97 18:09:30 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Being Honest.

On 06/23/97 at 01:28 PM,  Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
said:

>On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Simon Turner wrote:

>> QUASTSYS V.01
>> QUick And Stupid Tas SYStem
>> 
>> 1. Get the player to roll some dice. However many of what types they feel
>> comfortable with. They don't mean anything but hey it makes the   player >> think he actually does something.
>> 
>> 2. Carefully ignoring the diceroll, decide if the player
>> 
>>    a) Needs to succeed in order to further the plot
>> 
>>    b) A little faliure at this point would be good for dramatic effect.
>> 
>>    c) Has been annoying you all night and getting rid of that overblown
>> character would be a good thing.

>All right...I can't let this OBVIOUSLY BROKEN system go on!

>You completely forgot step 1.5: The GM Cackles gleefully as he/she rolls a
>HUGE handful of dice, including the DM special Death Die (A 10-sided with
>a skull and crossbones on every face), then gasps as he/she looks at the
>results.

Yes, Bruce that *is* exactly how I do it, and with you being 1500km away,
you'll just have to take my word for it! ;->

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

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1467
***********************************
