Traveller-digest      Wednesday, June 25 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1479



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Stats and Skills
Re: Why the MT system _is_ a good choice, pt II (retort to KB)
MT Formula
Re: Task System, Game Design, etc.
Re: Deckplan Question?
Re: Task System, Game Design, etc.
Re: Task System Blues
Re: Why the MT system is not a good choice
The KBv2.0 Challenge
Re: Meta-facts?
Re: Eris Task System Suggestion
Re: Deckplan Question?
High EDU/INTs (was Re: Character Generation Pages in WFW95)
Re: Campaign Hook
KB 3.0 support reiteration...
Re: T4 Task Rationale
Re: The KBv2.0 Challenge

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 19:18:50
From: 2drapers <2drapers@infowest.com>
Subject: Re: Stats and Skills

In a message dated 97-06-24 CardSharks@aol.com writes:

>Your comment implies that the restriction should be max skill level cannot be
>more than 2x Characteristic. The problem there is that Medic is associated
>with two different Characteristics (Edu and Dex). I suppose we could say you
>can have any skill levels you want, but you can only USE 2x the related
>characteristic.

What I was thinking about contemplates that stats should be eliminated
altogether from most task rolls.  You can attain skill level equal to 2x
your stat; if it is a skill associated with two different stats, use the
higher one.

The advantage of this is that you do not have to flip through the book
every time you use a skill in order to see what stat it is associated with.
 I have found that slows down play quite a bit, especially for new players,
much as having to look up the combat modifiers for various weapons and
armor in CT did.  I also think this approach is fairly realistic:  skill is
determinative of success, but people's characteristics limit how good they
can become at something, and everybody's limit is different.

The ability to differentiate between the doctor who is good at diagnosis
(high Edu) and the excellent surgeon (high Dex) is lost with this approach.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 19:04:06 -0500
From: "vanya" <vanya@partyline.net>
Subject: Re: Why the MT system _is_ a good choice, pt II (retort to KB)

> From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
> 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.

There aren't many that agree with you.

>Voting for T4.1 with revisions or variants thereof:
>-14( some of these state that it can't stand as it is though)
>
>Voting for KBv2.0 (or other KB variants or similar systems) were:
>-12
>
>Voting for a system along the lines of MT 
>-31
>
>TNE-like D20 system
>-3
>
>Other votes generally in favor of change (no specific system)
>-12

Seems that quite a few people don't agree with you, Kenneth.  By 2.5x,
people still seem to prefer an MT variant over a KBv20 variant, and 16%
more like the MT system than KBv20 and T4.1 combined.

You've got a lot of convincing to do.

- -Vanya                                         UPP-8D9B85
Traveller ---------------- Science Fiction Adventure in the Far Future
Meyers-Briggs personality type:ENTJ          | vanya@partyline.net
"...the ENTJ is not one to be trifled with." | dmoody@bridge.com

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 16:51:36 -0800
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@asylumbbs.com>
Subject: MT Formula

>
>MT is simple (IMHO):
>
>2D6 + Skill + (Stat/5)
>
>And that only took me one line!
>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.

No, you got it half right:

2d6+Skill+(Stat/5) vs (4 x DiffLev)-1

I suggest a modification

2d6 + Skill + (Stat / 3) -vs- (4 x Difflev)

DiffLev is # of levels of difficulty, with Easy being 1, Routine =2, Diff
=3, etc, for both origional and variant.

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 97 19:07:07 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Task System, Game Design, etc.

On 06/25/97 at 10:26 AM,  Bob Sanders <bsanders@amghome.com> said:

>>>>
>Thank you for your email. What I have to trust is that after I come to a
>decision, I will be able to withstand the flames.

>Marc Miller
><<<

>As a long time fan, I am pleased that you:
> 1) are even on this list
> 2) Listen to what people have to say
> 3) Respond with ideas and suggestions

Marc, 

I agree with Bob, here.  Your presence and attention is greatly
appreciated.  I hope our posts were more helpful than harmful in your
design efforts.

Oh, and I promise, no matter what, I won't flame you.  If that darn half
dice is still in there, I'll use house rules to get rid of it, but I
*won't* flame you.  ;->

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

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 97 17:40:22 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Deckplan Question?

On 06/25/97 at 03:29 PM,  CardSharks@aol.com said:

>2. The grid squares on deck plans are 1.5 meters on a side. A cube 1.5
>meters on a side is 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 3.375. Four such cubes = 13.5 cubic
>meters. Assuming a deck height of 3 meters, that means that two squares
>stacked with cubes to a height of 2 equals 13.5 meters or one ton.

>3. I think the measure has to be 13.5 cubic meters.

An easy and workable alternative that I use is 1x1x3.5m regular
parallelipeds mapped to squares, this makes each square exactly 1/4 ton.
The 3.5m deck height is better than 3m because it gives you good head room
(2.5m), and a generous crawlspace (1m) between decks.  It also allows nice
sized double high decks (1x1x7m=1/2 ton per square) for engineering and
cargo/ship bays.  It *also* allows easy scaling up and down from large to
small scale maps, compress each block of 4 1m squares down to 1 square and
you have 1 ton/square and have a summarized deckplan, expand them back and
you have a detailed one.  This seems to work well for PC sized ships.


Eris,
    yes, I guess I do *everything* differently. <sigh>
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 97 18:58:21 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Task System, Game Design, etc.

On 06/21/97 at 06:57 PM,  "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
said:

>Yes, I did agree with you that if we put skills on a 1-15 scale, the  rest
>of the discussion would be moot.

That sounds like a reasonable compromise...to me.  Of course, that would
push the number or dice up wouldn't it? ;->

>But, I did not agree that changing the value of skills that radically  is
>the best answer.  It seems to be that T4 will become a new animal  at that
>point more akin to TNE than to T4.

>I personally like CT's and MT's influcence on T4.  I like being able  to
>use my old supplements almost completely interchangeably.

Hum, well just double the levels in the old CT and MT supplements that
should do it.  Maybe even triple them...that's the same *effect* as KB2,
just a different process.

>It seems to me that it will be easier to tweak the task system (with  a
>system like KBv2.0) and leave the rest of the game alone rather  than
>having to create an entirely new task system and go through the  whole
>game re-writing all of the CT era rules that are included in  T4.

Yeah, we all know you do Ken. ;-> 

KB2 was a nice fix for T4, but maybe not for T41.

If Marc *is* doing a complete rewrite then he should look at how all the
new parts he is designing fit together.  The new Character Generation
system should fit with the new Task system and the new Experience system
and the new combat systems, etc.

I think, after the past week, Marc knows our concerns about the task
system, stat vs skill ratios, the high stat coming out of CharGen problems. 
I sure he's heard the desire to keep skill levels at CT levels from many
and the belief from folks like you and I that they go up *somehow*, I know
you prefer multiplying, but you also know I'd prefer just having more skill
levels.  He's likely heard *much*more* than he expected..or wanted to hear. 
;->

What we probably should do now is back off on this particular issue and let
Marc work.  He'll let us know what he decides to do...he might even let us
know pre-publication if we don't bug him too much.

Eris,
    the great compromiser! <yeah, right>
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 97 19:14:08 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Task System Blues

On 1997-06-24 16:06 thus spake Stuart L. Dollar:

>Just some random thoughts on the task system/skill value/attribute 
>debate.
>
>First off, let me stand up and be counted amongst those who are 
>in favor of Marc's tweaked task system for T4.1.  

<arguements deleted>

Good post Stu. I agree with *all* of your comments.

I'm a Traveller Task System Agnostic. There should be a task system. How 
it's implemented is irrelevant (to me).

The Task "Framework" (ie. description, difficulty progression, format, 
etc.) should be well defined, so that a common "language" for 
communicating task parameters is clear. That is the most important part. 
As long as the results have some cohesion, the actual percentages don't 
matter as much, they can be tweaked to individual taste.

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

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 18:30:29 -0800
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Why the MT system is not a good choice

The main reason I prefer MT has nothing to do with how it does,
or doesn't, handle skills vs stats right, or wrong.  I just
like that fact that it doesn't use numerous and variable
numbers of dice. 
______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 18:43:46 -0800
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: The KBv2.0 Challenge

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 22:23:44 +0000, "Kenneth Bearden"
<dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>

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

Lets be careful.  There has been alot of uncritical "counting"
going on here.  I'm supposedly in the "change" camp.  Yet I
don't think the T4.1 system _must_ be changed.  I just don't
happen to like numerous and variable dice (and would also tweak
the character generation system).

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

The problem is that you have taken at least some people who
have incompatible beliefs in what needs changing.  For example,
I don't think that the task system needs to be changed to
favor skills more.  I do favor sticking with 1, 2 or 3 dice
for all rolls.

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

For example, I would go with T4.1 before I would go with KBv2.0.

Just because a number of people don't exactly agree with T4 doesn't
mean they don't have even greater differences with each other.
______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:16:32 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Meta-facts?

At 09:09 am 06/25/97 +0100, you wrote:
>>        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.

	Glad I'm not the only one thinking that ... frankly, it turned me off
early. I got the distinct feeling they were trying to erase TNE as quickly
as possible by bringing in new people, but wound up doing worse damage.
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 19:51:49 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Eris Task System Suggestion

At 05:12 am 06/21/97 +0000, you wrote:
>
>> 	Hrm? I always felt that skills in TNE had more-or-less the same value as
>> in CT/MT ... And I've been keeping the flame for near two decades ...
>
>No.  TNE skill levels are worth about half of a CT/MT skill level.  
>That is, a CT/MT level 2 would convert to a TNE level 4--generally.
>
>You can infer this from the rules and game mechanics, but you can 
>also look in the back of Survival Margin where it talks about 
>converting CT/MT characters to TNE.

	Guess that's what I get for creating characters from scratch instead of
converting ...
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:28:57 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Deckplan Question?

At 03:29 pm 06/25/97 -0400, you wrote:
>In a message dated 97-06-25 05:07:54 EDT, you write:
>
><< 
> Haven't a clue where they got the 13.5 m^3 number, but by the definition,
> 14 is the correct number, and the number SHALL NOT be 13.5 UNLESS thou
> proceedest on to 14. 15 is right out! 
> 
>  >>
>
>
>1. Why are there short tons (2,000 pounds) and tons (2200 pounds). Answer:
>because the 2200 pound measure works better as an expression of 2,000
>kilograms. We see the same effect with statute miles and nautical miles.
>
>2. The grid squares on deck plans are 1.5 meters on a side. A cube 1.5 meters
>on a side is 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 3.375. Four such cubes = 13.5 cubic meters.
>Assuming a deck height of 3 meters, that means that two squares stacked with
>cubes to a height of 2 equals 13.5 meters or one ton.
>
>3. I think the measure has to be 13.5 cubic meters.

	Or assume a deck height (floor to floor) of 3.5m and a 1mx1m grid. The
deck height of 3.5m allows for the "'tween decks" stuff, such as
power/control/communications cabling, ventilation, waste and water piping,
nifty crawlspaces for PCs, etc. while still allowing decent
floor-to-ceiling spacing (to allow for taller folks ...).

	Or just approximate on your deck plans, it's close enough usually. If it
bothers you, you can keep track of how many 0.5m3 chunks you've lost, and
add it in where you need it. That's how I always did it in CT.
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:37:21 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: High EDU/INTs (was Re: Character Generation Pages in WFW95)

>> MENTAL CHARACTERISTIC EQUIVALENTS
>> Value	Int	Edu
>> 0	Braindead	Illiterate
>> 1		
>> 2		Basic Reading
>> 3	Impaired	Grade School
>> 4		Ed Certificate
>> 5	Below Average	High School
>> 6	Average	Associate
>> 7	Average	Bachelors
>> 8	Average	Masters
>> 9	Above Average	
>> A	Superior	Doctorate
>> B	Very Superior	
>> C	Gifted	
>> D	Very Gifted	
>> E	Genius	

	I've really got heartache with tying this so tightly to formal
degree-equivalents, unless you clearly and unequivocally state these are
only guidelines. There's a lot more to knowledge than formal education.

	And that's how I've always seen EDU--a measure of how much disparate
information a character knows, that can't necessarily be pigeonholed into a
specific skill. So a Bachelors' degree, to me, should mean a couple of
levels in a specific skill (in my case, BS in Aerospace Engineering = about
Engineering-3), plus a few collateral skills (Computer-1, Research-1), plus
an EDU bonus. The increase in EDU means I've learned a lot more than just a
few specific skills--I've been exposed to new ideas and thoughts, ways of
thinking, and a bunch of learning "below" the Skill-1 level; things like
history, the arts, etc., etc.

	Also, you've completely buried the abilities of self-taught people, who've
gained a huge body of knowledge without formal education. They may not be
able to stand up to an expert in any one area, but they know something
about a much wider area (definition of expert: somebody who knows more and
more about less and less, until he knows everything about nothing).
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:08:49 +0000
From: "Tim Reynolds" <tim@premier1.premier.net>
Subject: Re: Campaign Hook

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

> 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

There are alot of possibility with this plot, as a matter of fact
I am working on a few similar ideas myself.  You can have all sorts of 
things happen.  From in fighting, to Corp attacks as they try to 
regain the planet.  How will the rest of the Imperium react to this 
right before a moot.  Will another noble try to move in and claim the 
world.  What about the people on the planet it self, who are their 
leaders do these leaders have loyal followers?  


Tim

 

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 22:45:28 -0400
From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>
Subject: KB 3.0 support reiteration...

	Just thought I'd stand up and be counted in favour of KB v.2.0
again, especially as how Volker seems to have missed me the first time
around.

	I'd also like to add, as I'm currently using KB v.2.0, that it
really does work for me.  It is well integrated with the game, is dirt
simple, and IMHO fixes everything that stunk about the vanilla T4 system.

	A point to consider is that newbie Trav players such as myself,
who've bought T4, will instantly be able to understand it: "ohh... I see;
you make the skill count for more and you roll more dice and nuked the half
die; otherwise it's pretty well identical.


	People here have been saying that the TML isn't representative of
the "Traveller community at large" because we're all 20-year veterans with
three copies of every supplement ever written, and that therefore we ought
to be careful about making changes based on what the list says and see what
the vast majority of newbie Traveller players thinks.


	I AM a newbie Trav player; started playing last fall in an abortive
campaign run by Ross Coburn (he'd told me about the list last summer, so
I've actually been around for a little while longer than that).  I played 3
sessions of MT before that campaign blew up.  I then decided that this game
ruled (although I had reservations about the mechanics; I preferred
StoryTeller) and that I had to run a campaign.

	After buying the manual and borrowing all of Ross's stuff, I ran a
four-session campaignlet in order to teach myself and my players the game,
which I posted to the list as Traveller: Long Day's Journey.  Those four
sessions were enough to convince me that the T4 system was grievously
flawed.  So I decided to give KB v.2.0 a try in my next campaign.

	Two gaming sessions into the new campaign (we play on Friday next;
expect a new instalment then), KB v.2.0 has performed as well as Ken
advertises; my players, most of whom are Traveller newbies, have adjusted
to it perfectly.  I am very happy with it, and unless whatever is used in
T4.1 is superior (which it's hard to see how), I'm going to continue with
it in future.


	So, as an example of a newbie Traveller player, I can say that I've
playtested KB v2.0, am perfectly content with it, and rather than be upset
at having to ditch the task system in my (somewhat overpriced) manual, am
very happy that Ken has come up with the fix.  It's vastly improved the
game for me.

	So Marc; please give it a thorough looking-at; it's simple, it
works, and involves only minimal alterations of all those existing manuals
out there.  I'm sure that a load of non-TMLing newbie players out there
will be overjoyed to be able to use Ken's fix.

R.D. Elliott <rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca>

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:18:05 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rationale

At 11:30 pm 06/24/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Tue, 24 Jun 1997 19:46:46 -0600, "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
>[Regarding someone of below average Dex being doctor material.]
>
>>	I disagree. Dexterity is probably a very UNimportant skill for most
>>doctors.
>
>I don't disagree.  One might think that intellegence would be a better
>base for medical skills.  However, I wanted to make a point about
>talent vs skill, not bring up the separate issue of what the best
>attribute to base the skill on was.  (In fact, I agree with suggestions

	Arguing about which characteristic to use wasn't my main point, although
it was my starting point. Going back to my argument ... again, in the
real-life example I stated the greatest contributor, in my perception, to
the various medical tasks undertaken by the ER staff, was their medical
training. Not dexterity, although that would have aided in any surgery. Not
intelligence, although that helped them pull together the relevant bits of
their training. Not education, which I've always viewed more as the breadth
of a character's knowledge (as opposed to the depth represented by a
skill). It was their medical knowledge, pure and simple.

	Now, I've got a reasonable education, even though I'm not one of the
renaissance men on the list. I had a childhood fascination with history,
biology, rocketry and computers. I have a degree in aerospace engineering,
various technical training courtesy of the USAF in systems engineering,
R&D, acquisitions, and contract law, repeated first-aid and CPR training,
half a masters degree in CS/systems engineering, and a breadth of
continuous reading. Nevertheless, I would never expect that my Medical-1
(first aid training, CPR, buddy aid & self care, etc.) combined with my
education (C according to the test at GenCon; probably more around A
according the the scales bandied here) would grant me a gnat's ass chance
of performing open heart surgery. The medical skill MUST be the primary
weight here.

	Likewise, simply by virtue of my reading Scientific American, Science
News, Aerospace America, etc., the flat "Skill+Attribute" says I've got
decent chances of succeeding at:

	Admin
	Archaeology
	Armory
	Artillery
	Astrogation
	Biology
	Broker
	Chemistry
	Communications
	Computer
	Craftsman
	Demolitions
	Electronics
	Engineering
	Fast Talk
	First Aid
	Forensics
	Forward Observer
	Geology
	Gravitics
	History
	Instruction
	Language
	Law
	Linguistics
	Mechanics
	Medical
	Navigation
	Perception
	Philosophy
	Physics
	Psionicology
	Psychology
	Research
	Robotics
	Sensors
	Survey
	Tactics
	Writing

	In real life, even somebody with half my EDU, but with training (even
skill level 1) should outperform me on ANY task in which I don't have
enough training to qualify for the skill. Period. Sheesh! I remember people
squawking about how unbalancing JOAT was ... screw JOAT, gimme a skill
level of one or two in the critical areas, and then concentrate on stats. I
can do anything!

	I would much rather have an average-intelligence medical school graduate
(Int 7, Med-4) than a genius first-year med student (Int 15, Med-1) get
ANYWHERE near me with a scalpel, or even diagnose me. Any system that
doesn't work that way, to me, is fundamentally flawed and unuseable. That
path basically leads to the "Wesley Crusher" taste for the game ... a
decidedly unpleasant taste.

	Oh, BTW, I firmly reject the notion that this will come down to a tradeoff
between playability and believability. You don't have to go with a broken
system that's playable--find a believable system that's playable.

And despite Kenneth's unrelenting championing of KBv20 ("he never, even
gives up"--any relationship to Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ken?), I don't think
that's it, either.
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 21:45:27 -0500
From: "vanya" <vanya@partyline.net>
Subject: Re: The KBv2.0 Challenge

> From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
> We have all, almost unamimously, agreed that T4.1 must be changed.

*Yes.*

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

*No.*  Why?  "There is not just one way to play 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.

Kenneth, Fellow Sophont: 
	I will be the first to admit that the KBv2.0 system is pretty neat, and it
does what it sets out to do.  I will also be the first to admit that I
don't really like it, and neither I nor my players will use it to play
Traveller.

Why? (I'm glad I asked.)

	KBv2.0 system does extremely well modeling a task system that is based on
its fundamental assumptions.  The problem: not everyone agrees on those
fundamental assumptions.  This is why people play different games, or why
they use different systems to play the same game.  I'm not saying that the
assumptions are wrong, just that they aren't right for everyone.  Let's go
through KBv2.0 and discuss them.  Follow along kids!

**Fundamental Assumption #1: Skill vs Stat**
	KBv2.0 assumes that skills and stats should be weighted the same.  A quote
from KB himself states:

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

	Not all of us agree with this.  Some people think that stats should
dominate skills, while others think that skills should dominate stats.  I
happen to fall into the latter category (believing that skills are *much*
more important than stats) but a blanket statement of "That's how it should
be" does *not* appeal to everyone.
	However, if you believe in KB's FA#1, then KB works.  If not, the system
is already "broken".

**Fundamental Assumption #2: Success vs Exceptional Success**
	KBv2.0 assums that a character should always have a higher chance of
rolling success than exceptional success, regardless of the level of
difficulty of the task.  A quote from KB:

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

There are two parts of a successful task roll:
	a) did you succeed at the task? and
	b) did you Exceptionally Succeed at the task.

	KBv2.0 FA#2 says that, if you succeed at a task, your chance of getting
regular success should be higher than getting exceptional success
regardless of the difficulty or the skill of the character.

	Not everyone agrees with FA#2.  If a highly-skilled character is
performing a very easy task, who shouldn't he have an exceptionally good
chance of performing an Exceptional Success, even to the point that he will
*most of the time* perform Exceptional Successes?  i.e. A highly-skilled
character performing an low difficulty task should be able to get SS more
often than he gets just regular successes.  (Imagine asking Feynman to take
an algebra test, or Pavaroti to sing 'Happy Birthday' - these guys should
almost always succeed at the tasks, and get Exceptional Successes in them
almost always)  Contrariwise, a low-skilled character performing the same
task would have a greater chance of performing at the regular success level
than the more skilled character, and a less chance of Exceptional Success. 

	KBv2.0 also allows a character the chance to achieve Exceptional Success
for any skill+stat, at any difficulty.  Some of us believe that at very
high difficulties and low skills, if the character does succeed, it will be
as a 'skin of the teeth' maneuver, and at these high difficulties a
character *shouldn't* have a chance in hell of rolling Exceptional Success.

	Note: There is a related Fundamental Assumption that states much of the
same, but for Exceptional Failures, low skills, etc.  It is just the
opposite side of this assumption, so the two are counted as one Fundamental
Assumption.

**Fundamental Assumption #3: Rolling Handsfuls of dice is OK in Traveller**

	This is definitely the most subjective of the FAs.  For most of
Traveller's existence, it has relied on 2d6 (CT and MT) or 1d10 (TNE) or
1d20 (TNE ver 2).  Traveller does not have the right feel when I and my
players are rolling scads of dice.  It feels two much like _Star Wars_.
	Of course, this is *very* subjective.  

So,
**What Does It All Mean:**
	It's very simple: if you can agree with the FAs of KBv2.0:

	FA#1: Skill vs Stat - "KBv2.0 weights them equally.  That's how it should
be."
	FA#2: Success vs Exceptional Success -  "the doctor should beat the NPC on
all levels--regular success, exceptional success, and total success."
	FA#3: Rolling Handfuls of dice is OK in Traveller**

then it is definitely the best task system I have ever seen, and I will
never touch it again in my entire gaming career.  

Why?  

	Because I completely and totally disagree with all three FAs of KBv2.0. 
What ever example I post, from whatever system, KB will tear it up because
I do not subscribe to his FAs, and because of that his task system will
always be 'broken' to me, and mine to him.

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

	It can't be done, because other systems fail on one or more of your
Fundamental Assumptions.  Given different assumptions (that many people on
this list subscribe to) your system would be as broken as T4, or MT, or
TNE.  Given the assumptions above, KBv2.0 is a very good system,  but is
'broken' for those that do not agree with one or more of your FAs.

>Now, who will step up to the plate?

	We're stepping to different plates, Kenneth.

- -Vanya                                         UPP-8D9B85
Traveller ---------------- Science Fiction Adventure in the Far Future
Meyers-Briggs personality type:ENTJ          | vanya@partyline.net
"...the ENTJ is not one to be trifled with." | dmoody@bridge.com

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1479
***********************************
