Traveller-digest      Wednesday, June 25 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1478



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Why the MT system  _is_ a good choice
Re: Why the MT system is not a good choice
Re: Why the MT system _is_ a good choice, pt II (retort to KB)
The KBv2.0 Challenge
Re: Character Generation Pages in WFW95
Re: Deckplan Question?
Re: Task System: Compromise Solution
Re: In defence of MegaTraveller
Re: Latest Vote Count, 25th of June
Re: In defence of MegaTraveller
Re: Stats vs Skills? A reprise
Is EDU tech dependent?

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 22:04:36 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Why the MT system  _is_ a good choice

> -> 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.

> i didn't like that either, but that could be changed. I am not just 
> advocationg ther pure MT-System, but any variation of it!

So, we make the change from T4 to MT, and THEN we have to tweak MT.

That's backwards thinking.  We need to tweak T4 and be done with it.

> The time roll, was in my opinion, an exellent idea! You know how long 
> something wil take on average, but might take longer or less. Just 
> like real life! 

I agree with you here.  I think the MT time roll should be 
implemented in T4.  I already use it.


> No, the task system was a stroke of genius as well, not perfect, but 
> better than todays!

Back that up.  In what way?

Kenneth.

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 22:04:34 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Why the MT system is not a good choice

> This is an extreme example of the problem of dividing stats by 5 and rounding
> down. But you are right it is still a problem. Any system that divides stats 
> will suffer this problem, the more it divides by the bigger the problem.
> To reduce the problem the problem just divide by a smaller number.

You can _reduce_ the problem by dividing by a smaller number, or you 
can_eliminate_the problem by going with KBv2.0.

Why reduce when we can get rid of the problem all together?

> >Problem #2:  Spectacular Success Problem.

> This is a problem, but is easily solved make SS 3+ points higher,
> or even more if you think SS should be that difficult.

That won't fix it.  On your more difficult tasks, because we are 
using only 2 dice, characters won't have a chance in hell of rolling 
SS.

Example:

Stat-5, Skill-3 character attempts a Formidable roll (15+).  His 
target number is going to be 11+ on 2  D6.

If we make SS 3+ over target number, this character cannot even roll 
SS.  There is no chance he will do it because he cannot roll over 12 
on 2D6 (modifiers are already figured into the target number).

Of course, with KBv2.0, this problem is eliminated too.

> >Problem #3:  Regular Success
> >Our doctor has a target number of 3+.  The Medical-1 NPC has a target 
> >number of 5+, and this is how it should be.
> >For our doctor to roll regular success, he needs to roll a 4 exactly. 
> >For the NPC to roll regular success, he needs to roll a 6 exactly.  
> 
> Close, the doctor needs a 3 or a 4, and the NPC needs a 5 or a 6.

No.  In MT, rolling the target number exactly is called Marginal 
Success.  I stated that in my post.

But, this is moot.  Either way, the lower skilled character has a 
better chance than the higher skilled character.

> Rolling the exact number was a success. Marginal success rules were only used
> for ranged fire in combat (The hit only did 50% damage), not in the main task
> system.

Like I said, this is moot.  The example still stands.

> You are talking about regular success and excluding exceptional success.
> The chance of success of any type is 91.7% for the doctor and 83.3% for the
> NPC.
> the doctor has higher medical skill and a higher chance of success.

I do recognize that the higher skilled doctor has a better chance.  I 
knew that when I wrote the example.

My point is that the Med-3 doctor should beat the Med-1 NPC in all 
three areas--by SS, by regular success, and by total success.

Why are we forcing a system that has so many loop holes in it when we 
can go with a T4 tweak, like KBv2.0, and have EVERYTHING fixed?

It doesn't make sense to me.  It seems that we are trying to 
institute another system that has to be tweaked as well.

Why not just tweak the one we have?

That, it seems to me, is the easiest approach, and I have already 
done all of the work with KBv2.0.


> 2D6 + Skill + (Stat/5)
> 
> And that only took me one line!

Well, not quite.  You have to list target numbers too, but I won't 
quibble over this.

> Stat modifiers can be calculated and written down on the character sheet
> and theres no changes during combat because MT's damage system
> assigns damage to stats after the fight has finished.

But, in T4, we don't.  Damage is instantaneous.

T4 is not MT.  T4 is CT with tweaks.

T4 is to CT like MT is to CT.  But, T4 is not to MT like either T4 or 
MT is to CT.

If you can follow that confusing line, you'll see what I mean.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 22:04:33 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Why the MT system _is_ a good choice, pt II (retort to KB)

> -> Problem #1:  The Stat Problem

> This is a problem, indeed, but there have been many suggestions for 
> improvement already.

Why are you trying to replace the T4 system with another one that 
must be tweaked as well?

It is clear that the MT system must fixed to operate well with T4.

Why don't we just fix T4 and be done with it?

I'm telling you, KBv2.0 is the answer.

 Take Carlos 3-based system. Now every third 
> point counts! Do you know the difference between someone who has Edu 
> 7 and someone who has Edu 8??? I guess not!

There is a difference between an Edu 7 and a Edu 8.

It might be a small difference, but there is a difference--that's why 
there is a different number in the score.

T4, T4.1, and KBv2.0 all recognize this.  In these systems, you get a 
benefit for every point of stat and skill attributed.

In the MT dividing method, this will never be true.

T4 had it right the first time--the system just needed to be tweaked 
a little.  KBv2.0 is that tweak.

> Also it would be a possiblity to make ExSuccess Easier for those who 
> are closer to the next "switch". Taking a three-based system, someone 
> who has Edu 6 would be right on the switch, getting +2 on his task 
> and +0 on ExSucc. Someone with Edu 8 would get +2 on the task and +2 
> for ExSucc! That would take into account the difference in ability!

Write down exactly what you are proposing.  Then I'll take your 
specific system and show you, specifically, where the holes are.

Then, I'll show you how KBv2.0 doesn't have this problem.

> - > -> Problem #2:  Spectacular Success Problem.

> Then maybe there should be a 3+ necessary...

That won't fix it.   On your more difficult tasks, because we are 
using only 2 dice, characters won't have a chance in hell of rolling
SS.

Example:

Stat-5, Skill-3 character attempts a Formidable roll (15+).  His
target number is going to be 11+ on 2  D6.

If we make SS 3+ over target number, this character cannot even roll
SS.  There is no chance he will do it because he cannot roll over 12
on 2D6 (modifiers are already figured into the target number).

With KBv2.0, you don't have this problem.

> What exactly do you define as SS?

I defined it, mechanically, by what is in the MT rule books.

Exceptional to me always meant: 
> Better than average success.If something is very easy for somebody it 
> is much easier for him to be "better than average". 

Yes, it is better than average success, but you shouldn't have a 
better chance of rolling SS than you do regular success.

SS is when you roll that near perfect roll.  It should happen only a 
fraction of the times that you roll regular success or failure.

I think that most would agree on this point.

 
> There is nothing wrong with having lots of SS!

No.  SS should be that rare time when you roll really well.  The 
perfect hit, the better than average roll.

Your way (and the MT way), SS is the average roll.  

This is wrong for T4.  You should have a chance to roll regular 
success and regular failure.  Then you should have a smaller chance 
(much smaller) to roll SS or SF.


> -> Problem #3:  Regular Success
> -> 
> -> OK, here's a third problem with MT.  Let's compare our medic we've 
> -> been using to a Medical-1 character.  Both characters have Edu 9.  
> -> Both characters are attempting an Average task.
> -> 
> -> Our doctor has a target number of 3+.  The Medical-1 NPC has a target 
> -> number of 5+, and this is how it should be.

> Where do you take that from? If both characters have tha same values, 
> they need to roll the same target number!

Read the example.  I am comparing a Med-3, Edu-9 character to a 
Med-1, Edu-9 character.

All factors are the same except the skill level.  The Med-1 doctor 
has a better chance of rolling regular success than a Med-3 doctor.

And that's just not right in anybody's book.


> Or is it? I agree, it needs some tweaking, but it's better than 
> rolling endless numbers of dice.

Why is it better than rolling 2-7 dice?


> So youre saying that multiplacation is no math???

I'm saying that the multiplication in KBv2.0 is done very rarely.  
You do it once--when the character is created.

You don't have to do it again until your character goes up a skill 
level.  This will happen, what, once a game year?

In MT, you are constatly dividing stat by 5.  If you are wounded 
(using the T4 wound system, not the MT after the fact system), you 
have to recalculate stats.

This is not necessary in KBv2.0.  You always add your stat to your 
attribute (whatever it happens to be at the time of the task), and 
that's it.

In MT, you have a generic target number and skill and stat modifiers 
to make up a final target number.

In the T4/KBv2.0 systems, all of that is done with one simple 
addition:  stat + experience.

walaa.  KBv2.0 still remains the superior system.

> I am telling you, we, the proponents of MT, did our homework for it 
> as well. It may need some adaptions, but is in general the best task 
> system there is for TRAVELLER! 

It is clear that you did not do your homework.  There are still 
problems with the MT task system.

All I see criticising KBv2.0 is the personal preference of too many 
dice.

There are no areas where the mechanics of KBv2.0 fail--like in MT.

Show me a way that KBv2.0 fails in the game mechanics.

> -> Give it a shot in just one of your games.  It will make a believer 
> -> out of you too.

> Ditto. ;-)

I've used the MT system extensively through out my MT days.  I also 
used it as the my task system of choice before T4 came out.

It is not better than KBv2.0 (or the idea behind the T4 system) for 
the fact based, game mechanics reasons I have listed in my post.

KBv2.0 doesn't have these problems.  It is simply the best Traveller 
task system designed to date.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 22:23:44 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: The KBv2.0 Challenge

We have all, almost unamimously, agreed that T4.1 must be changed.

Now, we must all get behind one system to replace it.

Let's stop all of this quibbling, and start looking at the facts.  
Let's get behind one, good change for Traveller.

I strongly believe that KBv2.0 is the answer.  I believe this so much 
so that I am offering a challenge.

If you think you have a better system, then challenge me on it.  Pick 
a clear game related example and compare your system to KBv2.0.  
Show me how it is better than KBv2.0.

I want to see, comparing apples to apples, where KBv2.0 is inferior 
to any system yet proposed for Traveller.

Now, who will step up to the plate?

Kenneth.

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 22:37:43 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Character Generation Pages in WFW95

(In response to Marc's table where he defines what each level of EDU 
means, Scott Ellsworth said)

> I like this kind of table a lot.  If you include a similar one for the
> other stats, as well as one for the various levels of skill, I will be
> quite happy.  Having a table like this in the rules is a great idea.

I also like the table.  Having this might cut down on some of the 
"definition" arguments we have here on the TML and take a lot of the 
subjectivity out of exactly what an EDU 7 means.

I second Scott's recommendation that this is done for the other stats 
in T4.1, but I would also like to see something similiar done for 
skills.

Something like:

Level      Definition
=====     ========
1             Novice
2             Skilled
3             Professional
4             Expert
5             Master

etc.

Eris has listed a good description of what skill levels should be 
defined as some time ago.  I remember agreeing with what he had to 
say.

Maybe if we ask him nicely, he'll repost it.

How about it Eris?

Kenneth.         

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 15:34:11 -0700
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: Deckplan Question?

Marc writes

>3. I think the measure has to be 13.5 cubic meters.
Too late - 14 m3/displacement ton is enshrined in FFS2.  I personally always
assumed that there's a little slop in the deckplans - decks aren't all
3m high, for example - so the difference between 13.5 m3 deck plan
and 14m3 design system never really bothered me.

Bruce

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 15:30:33 -0800
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Task System: Compromise Solution

Wed, 25 Jun 1997 18:14:14 +0100, John Wood <John@elvw.demon.co.uk>
> What I would dispute here is the plural "skills".  I would say that,
> given equal ranges, *a* skill and *a* stat are balanced - but there are
> far more skills than stats, so overall a stat has far greater weight.
> The system very strongly encourages generalists.

I agree that the system should it more difficult to get a stat
than a skill.  After all, it is a more fundamental number.  But
to me this is clearly a change for the character generation
system.
 
> [GURPS suffers from the same problem in some circumstances, but this is
>  normally minimised by the high cost of stats.  I know *you* know this,
>  David, but I thought it worth mentioning here anyway.]

Exactly, it makes stats harder (more costly) to get.  I amazes me that
some claim that any system that uses stat+skill must be "broken" since
so many very decent systems work this way.

> > 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...)

> I think in an ideal world, this would be my preferred method of dealing
> with the situation.  Although I would (for preference) emphasise skills
> a little more anyway, I wouldn't be unhappy if that didn't happen under
> these circumstances.  However, changing the task system is more limited
> in scope and appears to be happening anyway; Changing chargen in such a
> way opens up a much bigger can of worms...

I don't know that it has to be so hard.  Just stat that you have to
save up 2 or 3 normal rolls to get on roll on the stat table...

______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 23:02:17 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: In defence of MegaTraveller

> Hi All,

Howdy,

> Having seen Kenneth's attack on MT, I was compelled to respond. Here goes.

Please.  I'd like to see how someone could defend that.

> That's because in MT, the importance of statistics is much less than the
> importance of skills in resolving a task.

Exactly the point.  In T4, stats were valued too much.  In MT, stats 
are not valued enough.

KBv2.0 weights them equally.  That's how it should be.  One part 
natural ability and one part experience.


> > The guy's got a 8.33% chance of rolling regular success, and a 
> > whopping 83.33% chance of rolling SS.
> 
> So ? This is for an Average task, remember. I would expect a high
> proportion of results
> to be better than regular success with a skill level of 3 on an average
> task. 

OK, let's look at the same example but change the skill level to 1.

Average task.  Stat-9.  Skill-1.

Character needs 5+ on the dice.  If he rolls a 5 or 6, he as rolled 
regular success.  If he rolls a 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12, he rolls a 
SS.

That's about a 25% chance to roll regular success and a 42% chance to 
roll SS.

You said that the guy with a level 3 skill should have a better 
chance of rolling SS than he does for a regular success.  I don't 
agree with that, but just to humor you, here's the same example with 
sombody with a level 1 skill.

And look at that--his chance of rolling SS is still better than his 
chance of rolling regular success by almost a 2 to 1 margin.

MT is busted, and it does not work in T4 very well.

KBv2.0 IS the better choice.


> You are missing the point ! The doctor has a HIGHER chance of spectacular
> success,
> and a better chance of success OVERALL.

I am not missing that point, and I can see that the doctor has a 
better chance overall.

What I am arguing is that the doctor should beat the NPC on all 
levels--regular success, exceptional success, and total success.

This is not happening in MT.  But guess what, it does in KBv2.0.

 
> Ah, but you have revealed another problem in your comments. For example, we
> can 
> now see that with KBv2.0, everyone is some kind of weird clone. They all
> have 
> similar chances of performing tasks in a mediocre fashion REGARDLESS of
> skill level. 

What!?  Support you comments with an example.  You are unclear here.
I'd like to see where, with KBv2.0, that is true.

 Plus, it is more flexible and allows for such things as
> the time it took to
> perform a task, mishaps ... I could go on.

Please do.  Take the KBv2.0 challenge.  Look at that post and send a 
MT vs KBv2.0 challenge to me.

Let's see how the two systems fair against each other.  If I were a 
betting man (and I am), I'd put my money on KBv2.0.

Take the challenge.  We will all see the outcome.


> Well, I did, no one liked it. I am therefore not a "believer".

Curious.  Why did they not like it?

Kenneth.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 18:53:40 -0400
From: Peter Miller <pmiller@linkeasy.net>
Subject: Re: Latest Vote Count, 25th of June

Hi,

> Voting for T4.1 with revisions or variants thereof:
> Voting for a system along the lines of MT
> (or variants thereof):
> (or just preferring it!)
> MT taking an impressive lead by now! Anybody cited wrong or left out
> mail me and i'll change the list!

Well, originally, I cast my vote in favour of the KBv2.0 system. 
However, after hearing many arguements, and critical analysis as well as
testing both in scenarios with my players (along with, I might add T4.1,
T4, and TNE) I have changed my KBV vote (sorry Ken).

Now, my vote is cast in favour of an MT-inspried system.  The reason you
ask?  Well, the main complaint I got from my players,a dn the main one I
face is too many dice.  Both KBv and T4.1 have lots of dice, not the
simple, tried and tested MT version.  I'm not asking for a perfectly
MT-like system, but a return to the days of few dice, and the Universal
Task Profile I loved so much.  MT was my introduction to Traveller
(although I own all versions now) and I definitely think it's the best
task system.

But, this is MY opinion.  I'm not too sure if I'd like to see Marc and
the IG crew publish the revised T4  with a completely different system
as that would saure confuse and annoy a lot of people with such
supplements as Pocket Empires.  I suppose it could work out, but I'm not
quite sure myself.  Regardless, my vote is for an MT-inspired system.

I do not recall with fondness the MT days because of just the great
supplements, as suggested by a list members, but also because of the
simplicity of thhe excellent task system.

Thanks,

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 19:04:48 -0400
From: Peter Miller <pmiller@linkeasy.net>
Subject: Re: In defence of MegaTraveller

Hi,

> That's because in MT, the importance of statistics is much less than the
> importance of skills in resolving a task. Edu is much more generic than
> Medic - it's the total sum of a person's Education, and includes many, many
> things that are not entirely relevant to the task at hand. The Doctor might
> have ( to use the British system for a minute ) an A-Level in History. That
> contributes to his Edu score, but is completely irrevelant to the Medical
> task.

Excellent point!  Education DOES represent the sum total f your
education, not specific to one course, or area of study like a skill
is.  Education represents my entire highs chool and college knowledge,
not just that one year of study I did in auto repair (to get a technical
skill or whatever).

> First off, we are not talking about that many more dice--1 or 2 at 
> the most over T4. 

But, we are talking about SEVEN DICE!  I'm getting visions of the STar
Wars system by West End, and there's a horrid game system, KBV is using
just as many dice as you in that game, whihc, incidently turned me off
Star Wars, and turned my players and I off KBV.

> > Simple addition to find a target number...no half dice...good chances
> > of success...easy implementation with T4.

That's not entirely true, and I'd say that bost systems have the same
complexity, each of them requriing a calculation before play (in MT the
stats division and in KBV the skill multiplier).

MT = stat\5 + skill
KBV = stat + 3*skill

Each takes one line, so that's a mute point. 

> > Give it a shot in just one of your games.  It will make a believer out of
> you too.
> 
> Well, I did, no one liked it. I am therefore not a "believer".

Gave it a shot...didn't work out.  I'm not directly destroying KBV
either Ken, I do thin, it's an alright which certainly accounts for the
lack of importance that T4\1 places on skills.  However, MT can do that
without the hassle of the extra dice, and also with giving me much more
such as the time, mishap, etc.

MT is tried, tested and true...to quote a commercial :) 

- -- 
________________________________________________ Peter J. Miller
Second Base Sports Cards - http://www.dragonfire.net/~pm/kevin/
TravWeb Central - http://www.dragonfire.net/~pm/traveller/

"The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, 
 but queerer than we _can_ suppose"

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 16:30:02 -0800
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Stats vs Skills? A reprise

Wed, 25 Jun 1997 11:46:36 +0100, "Silburn, Luke (Exchange)"
<SilburnL@logica.com>

> 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

Yes, but the iteration isn't random.  Players will tend to
want to have some skills at higher levels and pick them over
and over.

Additionally, this process holds true for both skill and
stat selection while stats have, in _addition_ the
effects of the bell curve.

Another way of looking at it is that characters have a
base of 0 for skills and 7 for stats.  It just that the
random part of the generation system gives characters 
a chance of having a bonus or penalty (this will be a
+2 to a -2 for 2/3 of the characters) in certain types
of skills to reflect talent.
______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 17:00:05 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Is EDU tech dependent?

At 02:17 PM 6/25/97 -0600, Glenn Hoppe wrote:
>Scott Ellsworth wrote:
>
>> This brings up another idea:  perhaps should EDU start out low, like 1D6+1,
>> and then get raised according to chargen and background skills, with EDU
>> being a possible background skill.  One of my players brought this point up
>> - regardless of background, it is pretty likely that a Sylean will have a
>> higher EDU than any person from a TL9 or less culture.  The resources it
>> costs to give  every Sylean the equivalent of a modern day PhD in
>> information is likely too trivial to notice - witness the section on
>> poverty - they all have wallscreens, and have been using databases to look
>> stuff up for a very long time.
>
>Yes, but, that assumes two things about the high tech society:
>
>1. The populace actually use the wallscreens for educational purposes,
>and don't spend all their time watching the latest holovid soap opera,
>or playing Duke Norris Nukem' in 3D. Brain candy does not an EDU
>increase make.

Very true.  Since I went shopping for a NorrisNuken cartridge today, I can
sympathize with the point.

>2. Is being able to look info up on huge databases condusive to
>encouraging EDU increases? The arguement could be made that High Tech
>people become dependent upon their KnowledgeBases, and don't bother
>actually absorbing factual content.

Also true, but given the sheer number of facts out there, and the
organization of them, someone who has grown up in a high tech environment
is likely to have encountered a given fact than someone at a low tech
point.  Whether they have absorbed any of them is arguable, but one still
has to encounter a fact before it can be absorbed.

The point I did not make well was that EDU is used as a modifier for a lot
of skills, and always in places where the clear implication was that high
EDU was a proxy for your likelihood of having read an important fact
relevant to the problem.  Given this, it seems like a good idea to either
add a technology component to the EDU score, or to the skill writeups.

For example, to answer a physics question on artificial gravity is an EDU
task, typically.  I suppose one should note the tech at which you received
each level of skill, and if you have not gotten a level of skill at a TL
that knows about grav fields, you cannot use your physics skill to solve
the problem.  You might be able to solve a much harder INT problem, though.

>I guess a lot depends on the definition of EDU, but it seems to me that
>there are factors in a high tech society that might impede the advance
>of EDU.

Verily.  They have some barriers, but they also have at least a chance of
having heard some of the facts that would go into some of those skill
writeups.

>As an aside, in TNE, higher tech citizens received an EDU bonus during
>character generation...

Rather than worry about nature vs. nurture, I will likely just go this way.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1478
***********************************
