Traveller-digest      Wednesday, June 25 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1474



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: T4 Task Rationale
Re: Meta-facts?
Re: Deckplans Questions
Re: Anders FUDGES a Task System
Re: Corsairs
Re(2): Editions and Mechanics comments
Re: Why the MT system is not a good choice
Re: T4 Task Rationale
Re: Anders FUDGES a Task System
What's a Task roll Modelling? (longish)
Division by Three
Campaign Hook
Coreward Maelstrom
Re:Minimum Tech Level For...
Stats vs Skills? A reprise

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

Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 23:41:30 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale

Wed, 25 Jun 1997 02:14:27 GMT, jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
>> Well, this is debatable since you dexterity doesn't tend
>> to decrease until late in life (after retirement) and children
>> aren't usually doctors.  In any case, even if it were the
>> case I would say that someone who is totally mediocre is
>> hardly doctor material either (not without a lot of training
>> at least.

>Yes, but is that training that grants "skills" or training that grants
>"stat bonuses"?

I'm sorry, I don't see the point here.  If assume that stat increases
are training, then the current task system does favor training over
talent that step further.

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:09:33 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Meta-facts?

>        Oh, I don't want to know _everything_ about the plot line for the next
>five years. But I would appreciate it matching with what I've already
>learned about the plotline from the last FIFTEEN years.

I agree on that! The trouble with T4 offerings is that the authors seem
never to have actually played Traveller given the amount of canon trashing
they managed to put in so few volumes.


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

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 03:03:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: GypsyComet@aol.com
Subject: Re: Deckplans Questions

  As mentioned here by Glenn Hoppe:

>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.

  I've found that treating the grid as 1m instead of 1.5m makes this
deckplan work. I've also created stats and plans for a real 400-ton
version for an earlier phase of the above mentioned Traveller game...
  The DGP version of the Free Trader has the same problem, and the same
fix.
  Worse than GDW, however, was FASA. The various ships in Adventure
Class Ships Vol. 1 & 2, as well as the individual ships released earlier
were bad or off-tonnage almost without exception. The much touted King
Richard, a 5000-ton liner, has almost enough fuel volume to fill a good
sized bathtub. Many of the designs are off-volume by much more than the
Empress Marava, and several break the rules for hardpoints (no longer an
issue, fortunately).

Glenn also said:

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

 Care to point the way, Glenn? I'm always game for a few more deckplans.


GypsyComet

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:06:41 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Anders FUDGES a Task System

>Personally, if we move from a variable number of dice to a fixed set, I'd
>prefer using 3 dice over 2. The range of probabilities is much better.
>
>Eris

I've been using 2D6 with a twist: Whenever you roll 2 or 12 you are allowed
to roll 1D6 and if it comes up as 5+ for 12 (2- for 2) add (subtract) 1 to
the result and keep rolling. So in order to roll 15+ on 2D6 you need to
roll 12 on the first 2D6 and then roll 5+ on three consecutive 1D6 rolls.
It may seem complicated but is actually great fun and only happens
occasionally. I choose 5+ as I wanted that going from 11+ to 12+ and 12+ to
13+ to be the same increase in difficulty (x3 harder).
I find this way of making a "bell shaped curve" more acceptable than the
FUDGE system. It also allows for arbitrarily good/bad rolls.

(saturday the Vargr PC Gvoudzon managed to roll -4 on a 4+ Sensor task. He
was scanning for gasgiants in system and I told him that the background
radiation for the unicerse seemed to be around 300 K as he had failed to
pop up his sensor and had basically been integrating the radiative feature
of the sensor armorcover = I forgot to remove the lenscap :)


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

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 03:04:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: GypsyComet@aol.com
Subject: Re: Corsairs

  A very basic set of Corsair deckplans was published in one issue of
Traveller's Digest (middle teen issue, I think).  Bleh.  No other
Corsair plans have ever seen print (aside from T4-Starships) that I'm
aware of.

  For the game I was in until recently, I produced a set of deckplans
for the (originally MT) 440-ton Corsair. Instead of having a cargo bay
capable of swallowing a Type-S, I gave it an external grapple and uprated
the drives so it could GRAB a Type-S (I prefer to ignore the required
surface area rule for grapples, BTW, as it makes some things very
difficult or impossible).
  As for why such ships exist, I defined the original design as a very
early Third Imperium design for a "large" independant freighter that
eventually lost out to the Vilani-designed Type-R. Solomani captains
love the thing even after a thousand years however because the lines
of the ship disturb Vilani architectural sensibilities.  This is
the hull depicted in silouette in the SOpM and in one or two bits of DGP
artwork.  The non-uprated version is common in the Solomani dominated
Marches, but the hull has an unshakeable reputation as a Pirate's vessel.
The hull is so well suited to modifications that few pirates can resist
one of these. It has become my equivalent of the Corellian Stock Light
Freighter.

  My version will soon (I hope) be available on a Website I now have under
construction. It will only be in TNE format for the time being, as I can't
yet fathom the ever-changing face of T4 ship-construction rules.  More
info as I know (or create) it.

GypsyComet

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 03:13:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: GypsyComet@aol.com
Subject: Re(2): Editions and Mechanics comments

hdhale@siscom.net (Harold Hale) responds:

>GypsyComet writes:

>> 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.
>
>   Your assumption is that "imbalance" is a bad thing, which is just a
>matter of opinion.  The High Guard, Merc, Scout, and Merchant Prince
>characters I generated routinely had skill levels as high as 6 and stats
>as high 12 (characters with low Int and/or low Edu were routinely tossed
>out before generation began because of the totally artifical Int+Edu
>stat limit)--that doesn't sound all that "balanced" to me.

  CT DID balance things, sometimes to the point of overbalance in the
direction of the skills.  Check the combat DMs associated with each
weapon (Book 1:Characters and Combat, pg 44). To-hit rolls were modified
directly by the skill value, but stats only contributed if you were better
than average. In most cases the stats would penalize your attempt if they
were too low, at least in combat. The effect, however, is that skills and
stats had the same range of effect on the die roll.
  I will conceed that the desirability of balance is certainly a matter
of personal opinion. The last week of the TML proves it...

>
>>  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.
>
>   As in T4, done that way for sake of simplicity.  As I have indicated
>elsewhere, I would have had no problem with some tasks being based on an
>average of two stats.

  In some cases, certainly, but I still prefer the wide open task system
of MT. The task at hand defines BOTH the skill and stat appropriate to
success.  This prevents skill-stat pairs that are ridiculous for many of the
applications of that skill. It also allows the relationship between the
skills
and the attributes to _change_ depending on the situation.

  Gee. Make that one little change to T4 and nearly everyone goes home happy:
The domination of stat or skill is situation dependant, not system dependant.


 Gah.

GypsyComet

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:28:55 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Why the MT system is not a good choice

>Spectacular Success was called Exceptional Success in the MT rules.
>Here, I will call it SS like in T4 for convience.
>
>There is a problem with it when using the system in conjunction with
>T4.  Under the MT system, SS is rolled when a number is rolled that
>is 2+ points higher than the target number.

IMHO the MT task system suffered from the following problems
(not in order of severity):

1 Automatic success on 12 and automatic failure on 2. This rule and all
otherv rules with fixed automishap/success are generally there because the
task system designer couldn't figure out a way to generate differentiated
results with arbtrarily low propabilities. OK I'll try to play a violin
piece from Paganini: The -DMs and task difficulty would be mind boggling
but I'd still have 1/36 chance of success.

2 The 3,7,11,15 progression made tasks to coarse you had basically an:
always succeed, 50% chance, always fail progression which was no fun.

3. The time roll. Whenever you roll a task you should be told by the
referee BEFOREHAND how long it will take as the task roll is done at the
end of the task attempt. Joe Bazooka is trying to disarm the bomb before it
goes off (5 minutes). He succeeds at the task but he fails to do it in
time?

4. The Exceptional success thing. Most of the time a Exceptional success
was more common than a regular one! What does Exceptional really mean?

5. Uncertain tasks had entirely different propabilities and outcomes than
regular tasks therefore making it impossible to convert a task between
normal and uncertain. When I tried MT I let the ref roll 1D6 secretly and
the player the other which worked fairly well as I didn't tell the player
the result.

6 A characteristic was only interesting as to wether it was a 5, 10 or 15
in value. Anything in between was ignored.

The reason why so many of us talk fondly of MT Task system is that we
really mean the MT days with excellent quality DGP products and good
quality GDW products.


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

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:32:00 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale

>For example, almost all of them were musically inclined.  Most had some
>feeling of history, and virtually all liked all sorts of sciences.  When
>they took into classes in other fields outside the sciences, they tended to
>do very well.  What they could not do, though, was outperform people who
>had been in the field for years after taking just one intro class.  They
>often could skip prerequisite classes, but they could not jump straight
>into graduate studies.
>
>So, I have no problem with stats being a big influence, and a high stat
>leading you to success in more fields, I just cannot believe a system that
>makes a high stat so incredibly superior to years of training in so many
>fields at once.

High stats should make the unskilled penalty less severe and also make it
easier to GAIN skills. Enough said.


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

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 97 02:00:48 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Anders FUDGES a Task System

On 1997-06-24 12:00 thus spake Eris Reddoch:

>On 06/24/97 at 08:08 AM,  anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman) said:
>
>>>This system works nicely and can be adapted to Traveller in many
>>>different ways, but it is *so* different, I wouldn't dream of suggesting
>>>Marc use something like this in T41.  ;->
>
>>About the names of tasks/skills I think it is important to keep the names
>>of skills and equivalent tasklevels similar ie:
>>Extremely inexperienced  Extremely easy
>>Very Inexperienced       Very easy etc
>
>I just put them side by side on the character sheet and run my finger up
>and down betweeen them.  After a few minutes doing that it becomes second
>nature.

Agreed. It's no biggie. I have a half inch strip on the bottom of the 
character sheet showing the -4 to +4 progression with FUDGE level names 
and Traveller task names. Let your finger do the walking...

>>My biggest gripe about FUDGE is that there is no tasklevel that is about
>>50%. 
>
>That's true, and it bothers me too.  Increasing the number of fudge dice
>doesn't solve that problem either.  I checked as high as 7 and the jump
>from -1 to 0 was still about 44% to 58%.  I still use Fudge style
>resolution for the quick and dirty rolls, reserving a more detailed
>Traveller style resolution for cases where the difference in a point makes
>a big difference.

I don't see the problem. Why is a 50 percentile point on the curve so 
desired? Why should the large jump in the middle of the range be 
bothersome? An average person doing an average task should have a better 
than 50% chance to *equal* Average or do better. He should have a *less* 
than 50% chance to do *better* than he usually does, but not Average. 
Therefore, why do we need a magical 50% data point?

If you really think somebody has *exactly* a 50/50 chance to succeed at 
something, flip a damn coin and move on! ;->

I must point out that the "flaw" of granularity in the mid-range is due 
to the Bell shaped distribution curve with relatively few (9) data 
points. This is a *good thing* imho. If you wanted less granularity in 
the middle your choices are: (A) Roll mitfuls of dice (eg. 7d6) and get 
absurdly low probabilities on the extrema, or (B) Roll few dice (eg. 2d6) 
and get an inelegant (imho) "chevrony" curve.


BTW, if you're looking for different FUDGE dice curves, there are 22 
varients ranging from 2DF to D10's to D20's, along with the percentages 
at:

<http://www.iccom.com/usrwww/bing/frp/fudge/dice.html>

Maybe one of the alternate curves is more to your taste... I think 
2d10.3.1 is interesting... where d10.3.1 = [-2,-1,-1,0,0,0,0,+1,+1,+2]

>>I've tried a tasksystem that gave Joe Average 6+ on 2D6 on Normal
>>tasks and we played an entire boarding action with that and later refought
>>it with 7+ instead. The differance in feel was quite large and both my
>>players and me agreed on 7+ being superior.
>
>Yes, the difference should be very easy to see.  The difference is 42%
>compared to 58%, and a 16% difference is quite significant.  If we go from
>2 to 3 dice, though, we do have a 50% breakpoint at 10- or 11+.
>
>Personally, if we move from a variable number of dice to a fixed set, I'd
>prefer using 3 dice over 2. The range of probabilities is much better.

Agreed. 2d6 gives a chevron, at least 3d6 comes a little closer to a 
regular bell distribution, with more results clustered in the middle.

Careful on the definitions, though. "Normal" tasks, if they are 
"Average", should have a greater than 50% chance for Joe Average to 
achieve. If the difference in feel was superior, it was because the most 
*common* tasks in that scenario were "Difficult" to perform for Joe 
Average...

- -- 
===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 97 02:03:45 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: What's a Task roll Modelling? (longish)

The recent thread, Re: Anders FUDGES a Task System, got me thinking whys. 
I began thinking of the "meta-issues" with respect to Task Systems. The 
big picture, instead of getting mired in the details.

Why do I like bell curves? Why do I think FUDGE's die mechanic seems 
inherently elegant? Why do 2d6 based systems seem clunky? Why do I 
dislike Die modifiers? Why do I think the Task System as it stands will 
never live up to my expectations?

What's a Task System supposed to model, anyway?

And the answers came to me... I hope I can express my thoughts.


Thought experiment: Why Joe is Average
======================================

What does skill level represent? Answer: a general level of competence. 
If Joe is an average carpenter you expect him to do an average job "most" 
of the time. If Mike is an excellent carpenter you expect his wooden 
dinette sets to be of excellent quality, "most" of the time.

You would expect a histogram of the quality of Joe's work to be roughly 
bell shaped, with the peak centred on an average quality rating. On a bad 
day, he might have substandard results, on a good day they tend to be 
outstanding pieces of furniture.

The problem lies in defining "most" [of the time]. (sidebar: This is my 
view of what, in general, task systems are designed to define. I think 
Traveller's biggest problem at present is defining how to calculate (ie 
define) Joe's actual skill level in the first place... Which is why I 
advocate "decoupling" skills and characteristics so that skill level is 
absolute. I digress)

If you're modelling Joe's "tasks" using a 2d6, with the peak "7" 
representing an average job, I think you're falling short the "correct" 
typical distribution. "Most" of the time, in the case of 2d6, Joe's work 
is better than, or worse than, his level of competence.

Throw in more dice, say 5d6 or so, and the curve becomes more bell 
shaped, results cluster in the middle better, Joe churns out fewer 
outstanding or crappy works, and more easily falls into his routine of 
churning out average wooden objects.

(Before people rush down my throat and say "But it's a game! We want to 
do better or worse than expected or it gets really boring!" I say that 
it's more important to have some idea of what to expect. I expect that at 
least, say 60 or 70% of the time, I will achieve a result slightly more 
or less at the level of my competency. That's not boring, because the 
exciting part is when the unexpected happens! If everything is unexpected 
or totally unpredictable, then things get unruly and unrealistic. What's 
the point of a task system in that case?)


Data points are irrelevant, or It's the result, stupid!
=======================================================

Now, with more dice you get a bunch more data points. You can refine to a 
great degree exactly how good Joe's work is. But -- most judgments of 
people's success are very subjective. It's usually unnecessary to be 
overly meticulous about "grading" performance. A task succeeds, or 
doesn't. Or perhaps it succeeds or fails spectacularly.

Traveller has 4 outcomes: Succeed, Fail, SS, SF.
The Babylon Project has eight. FUDGE has nine results, or levels of 
success.

The reason why people seem to get hung up on having those data points is 
because it allows "tweaking" with many smallish DM's, or it allows 
granularity in defining someone's skill level, through a range of 13 or 
so in characteristics, and 6 or more in skills. About 20 data-points!

But does that granularity accomplish anything? Can you really line up 20 
carpenters, and grade them in such a way, where their difference in skill 
is significant enough to require so many data points?


How much detail is required?
============================

OK, so some people like having their skills rated on an exact percentage 
scale down to 4 significant figures. But does that really contribute to a 
better game, or better roleplaying? And others like to throw in a 
table-load of Die Modifiers and so forth. But is that really fine grain 
tweaking necessary just to nudge the probability in the result a couple 
percentage points?

What's the point of defining a base difficulty for a task? You want to 
figure out what level of competence is required to achieve success.

You could say, as a GM, "This is a FORMIDABLE task, but since you're 
standing in freezing mud up to your knees, and mosquitoes are buzzing 
around, I'll give a +3 DM to the roll."

or... "Under normal circumstances, this is a FORMIDABLE task, but since 
there's mud and mosquitoes and such, it's a STAGGERING task."

Either way, it's referee fiat. In the first case, you pull Die Modifiers 
out of the air. In the second case, you make a judgment call about what 
level of competence should be required. At least with the second case, 
you have some idea of what results can be expected. With the first case, 
you've got to do the calculation of target numbers and percentages and 
how much a +3 DM changes things and whether that's reasonable... yadda 
yadda


Making a Bell Curve
===================

There are many ways to simulate the Bell Curve. You can use a table and 
straight percentage dice, or determine values required with some other 
combination of dice. You can roll a bunch of dice and determine ranges of 
success.

You make a bell shaped Attribute distribution by rolling more than one 
die, in D&D 3d6 is more bell shaped than Traveller's 2d6, but at least 
it's a distribution with a peak in the middle.

The peak shifts up a bit, during generation, but that's OK, as the 
seasoned veteran is a cut above the rest.

FUDGE works well because its bell shaped task curve is exactly the same 
as the bell shaped distribution of skill and attribute levels. It's easy 
to determine the level of competency required, because it's exactly the 
same as the difficulty level of the task!


Tieing Apples and Oranges
=========================

There is great debate in the Traveller realm, over this task system thing 
because of two major problems. (My humble opinion, of course, no flames 
please)

1. Skill competency is not absolute

Success at a task depends upon Skill Level and a Characteristic. This 
isn't necessarily a bad thing, just a complicating factor. Joe's 
carpentry skill level isn't an absolute. If he's cutting wood, he's 
relying on his Dex. In another situation, he could rely on Intelligence, 
or Education, etc.

Therefore, Joe's Traveller Skill Level isn't really an absolute measure 
of his skill. And great debates ensue over exactly what formula should be 
used to convert that arbitrary skill level and characteristic to an 
absolute target value.

2. Attribute scales, Skill scales, and Difficulty scales are different.

Attributes are rolled using 2d6, making a chevron distribution, 
quasi-bell shaped. Skills are advanced one point at a time, making them 
linear in nature. Difficulty rolls become more bell shaped as more dice 
are tossed at them.

And poor Marc is trying to tie the whole mess together. A daunting task 
indeed!

Everyone is chiming in with their own band-aid solutions, trying to tie 
together these apples and oranges.


It's Just a Game, Glenn, Chill out!
===================================

So it's just a game. We're not trying to exactly model real life. 
Whatever works for ya, works. I'm just trying to point out that all this 
hubbub over Marc's T4.1 solution is really sweating over details which 
inherently don't mean much of a rat's bottom. The above major problems 
put great limitations on the realism of the system, and the solution is 
purely subjective.

(BTW, I think he realizes this, and points this out from time to time. 
What difference does 10% really make to the playability of the game?)

Although it is just a game, I'm glad Marc makes an effort to try and 
satisfy us, his customers. And the majority who believe his formula needs 
tweaking.

Me, I shall never be satisfied with the solution, I'm afraid. I have 
reached a conclusion, had an epiphany, if you will. FUDGE doesn't have 
the problems of disassociation between Skill Levels and Difficulty 
levels. I feel it's a big PITA to use a non-absolute Skill Rating, that 
doesn't correspond exactly with difficulty. That's why I'm rating skills, 
attributes and task rolls in FUDGE terms.

As for the "disadvantage" of not linking Attributes and Skills, I can 
fairly easily decide whether a task should be against an 
Attribute/Characteristic or a Skill. If it seems that it should be both, 
than maybe it's two separate tasks, one against the skill and one against 
the attribute. Or maybe another skill should be brought into play.


Well, I've spent far too much time pontificating. I *meant* to catch up 
on my sleep tonight. I hope that I've made my opinion clear, and perhaps 
assisted in bringing this debate down to earth a weeny little bit. I 
sincerely hope that the issue is resolved, and the best compromise 
solution is found and published.

"You can please some of the people all the time, or all of the people 
some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time."

- -- 
===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 01:46:40 -0800
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@asylumbbs.com>
Subject: Division by Three

>I don't understand why people dislike the idea of dividing characteristics
>by three to get the DM.  I'v ealready jotted down the ranges, and have a
>space on the character sheet right next to the characteristic for them.
>example:
>
>STR  8/+2
>DEX  C/+4
>END  5/+1
>INT  7/+2
>EDU  2/+0
>SOC  9/+3
>
>So if this character had Rifle-2, his final skill would be (using Str) 4.

Doug (and Marc): Dividing att by three and dropping remainders (fractions)
is how I've run the MT task system in traveller since before it was the MT
task system! (Anyone remember where it came from??? DGP's supps and mags
first showcased it thoroughly!)

I would reccomend having the task taget numbers increment in even multiples
of 4 (4, 8, 12,16, 20, 24), and limit to +12 DM (from any combination of
stat mod and skill levels). I HAVE playtested this. My players loved it. It
works well with t4 C-gen from rulebook as written.

BTW, if it matters, two of my players demanded that I ask to have them
added to the Task system list: Erik Pikey (No e-mail); and my wife,
Stephanie Hostman (Kenarik@asylumbbs.com); both vote for Mega-like task
system. If need be, score-keeper can e-mail steph for confirm.


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

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 19:59:18 -0700
From: Ian or Katts <ianw@zed.com.au>
Subject: Campaign Hook

A small, unhealthy world with mining potential exists. The Sylean
Economic Security Agency (with perhaps a little help from the MoJ,
IISS and a friendly corporation) begins a ahhh recruiting campaign
of settlers.

Imagine for a minute a 20 year old slum kid gets taken to hospital,
arm falling off from a spurt gun burst ...

"Hi kid. I'm your case worker from the SESA ... now, as I see it,
you have some questions you dont want us to ask. Stuff like why
didnt you report the use of the spurt gun, or why your sero-counts
show use of at least five category four and up pharmecuticals. So,
you can either sign up for Richelle Mining, and their all-inclusive
health plan, or I can alert that gentleman from the MoJ that you're
here. Richelle will take you as of, oh, 8 o'clock today on a four-
year contract. It's a decent contract - you are cut in on a ten percent
profit share, and they'll even teach you some useful skills. OK,
so the colony has some OH+S issues, like the atmosphere on Richelle
shows 12% hydrocarbons and occasional patches of alkali swamp, but
I've been told you can get used to it. So, do we have a deal ? Or
are you looking at four years and a little personality modifacation ?"

The kid then gets his arm put back on, and gets put through "Vacc Suit
101" and his choice of "Prospecting", "Tracked Vehicle Maintainence"
or "Power Plant Maintainence". Then he gets put on a Scout-surplus
Type S scout, for the three-month trip to Richelle ... 

Long Range Plot Hook : Richelle is an Imperial World, right ? Therefore
it gets a Moot rep. Currently, that is Sir Alkoth, who set up this scheme.
Unfortunatly, he has a heart attack with a month to go till a Moot. And
no issue. Therefore, the world has to pick a new representitive, as it
is now self-governing (he used to hold a 51% controlling interest in
Richelle Holdings LIC, which owns Richell Mining and, in fact, Richelle).
Could be a fun trip for an ex-slum kid ...

Ian Whitchurch

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 11:46:51 +0100
From: "Silburn, Luke (Exchange)" <SilburnL@logica.com>
Subject: Coreward Maelstrom

James:
<<Anyone care to wager how much of a threat they would be to the Domain
of Deneb *if* the Vargr could all get along together (for longer than
a few months or so, anyways)?  I'm considering running a campaign
taking place around 1125 where just such a thing might be possible (I
haven't figured out exactly how, yet).>>

Hmmm... If you want a historical parallel to inspire you, then I suggest
you read up on the origins and early history of Islam. Vagr mojaheddeen
could be just what the doctor ordered. Of course, if you follow the
historical model closely, then you'll end up with a radically different
universe from canon; but it could be fun.

Luke
SilburnL@logica.com
Suggestions for a witty .sig gratefully received....

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 03:44:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>
Subject: Re:Minimum Tech Level For...

  One other consideration as to tech level is whether these folks
developed their air travel independantly or regressed from higher tech.
The reason I note this is that it is possible to duplicate higher tech
equipment at higher cost and effort at lower tech levels.

  A good modern example of this is the gunsmith community of Afganistan. 
Since the last century, these highly skilled metalworkers have been able
to duplicate modern firearms, up to and including weapons like the Soviet
AK series, using nothing but hand tools and foot-powered lathes.  Now,
even totally modern firearms are arguably not that high tech (aside from
the plastics used in their stocks), but the level of metalworking is
certainly sufficient here to duplicate lightweight steam engines or even
alcohol-fueled IC engines.  This certainly argues for the idea previously
presented of small scale craftsmen making propulsion machinery.

  By the way, there is no reason parts could not be interchangable.
Interchangability is a "soft" technology, and depends on a mindset that
recognizes the need for building in tolerances between moving parts and
using standard gauges.  For example, the parts for weapons the Afgani
gunsmiths make fit weapons made in factories.  Thus, if one assumes a
society where airships are reasonably common and the need to fix them far
from home arrises, the use of standard designs and interchangable parts
is a real possibility.  More likely, though, is that the local blacksmith
would just copy the broken part and send you on your way.


______________________________
Dr. Mark Clark
Oregon Institute of Technology

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 11:46:36 +0100
From: "Silburn, Luke (Exchange)" <SilburnL@logica.com>
Subject: Stats vs Skills? A reprise

I wrote:
<<Firstly skills do not follow Normal bell curve. They are a Poisson
distribution with a mean somewhere around 1. Loads of 0s, a fair number
of 1s and 2s, but precious few 6s. Secondly, you are comparing the
*full*, 0-6 range of skills against a partial range of stats (5-11). A
more appropriate comparison would be a 'typical' stat range 5-11 versus
a 'typical' skill range of 0-3.>>

David replied:
<<Well, this might be an additional point (though is would still
reinforce my point about not comparing absolute values) except
that I don't agree that skills are going to follow that
distribution.  The fact is that, while the rolls follow
the bell curve, purchase of skills is on a linear cost
(rather than a diminishing return).>>

I'm not sure I follow your point. The *cost* of skills is linear (1
level per pick), but the process of aquiring them is iterative. Assuming
that a player is rolling for their skills rather than picking them, this
means that high levels of skill are a product of a statistically
dependant process. You need to get level 1, before you can get level 2;
level 2 before level 3 etc. If a given skill has a 1/6 chance of being
rolled from a certain table and a player makes five rolls on that table
during character creation then the probability of their character having
no level in that skill is 40%, whilst the probability of their having
skill-5 is 0.01%. The typical outcome of this scenario would be
something like three skills @ 1, one skill @ 2 and the example in the T4
rules bears this out. Captain Jamison has a total of 28 *levels* in
skills, but no individual skill is higher than 3 IIRC (and one of those
is Pilot, which includes a free level for achieving rank O4 in the
merchants).


David again:
<<In any case, you would still have to take into acount that
stats trail off at _both_ ends of the range rather
than just one.>>

Again, I don't follow you. The example I used took this into
consideration. A normal distribution groups roughly 60% of a population
within one SD of the mean (and roughly 90% within two SD). Thats one SD
*either way*. So if the mean is 8 and the SD is 3, then 60% of the
population will score between 5 and 11 (8 +/-3) and 90% will score
between 2 and 14 (8 +/-6). Stats *do* trail off in both directions, but
skills only trail off in one direction; that was my point. The
comparison of ranges between stats and skills that you made was not
like-with-like.

Luke
SilburnL@logica.com
Suggestions for a witty .sig gratefully received....

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1474
***********************************
