Traveller-digest      Thursday, June 26 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1482



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: The MT task system was *FAR* from perfect...
Re: In defence of MegaTraveller
KBv2.0 as an Optional Rule?
Re: Re: Anomalies stuff
Can Stat + Skill Be 'Broken'?
RE: Task System Blues
Slum Kid on a Colony
Stat vs Skill. A reprised, reprise.
Re: T4.1 Task Suggestions (A Compromise Marc Might Like)
Bye for now
Task Systems
Re: Character Generation Pages in WFW95
Why KBv2.0 is fundamentally flawed
Re: The KBv2.0 Challenge
Re : Plot Hook
Re: Deckplan Question?

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 08:18:48 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: The MT task system was *FAR* from perfect...

> Above all else, we must consider that Marc is 99% UNlikely to change
> the general framework of the Traveller task system.  

Any task system
> proposed MUST be backwards compatible to some extent, or you risk
> angering potentially thousands of non-TML Traveller players.

This is a big plus for KBv2.0.  It fits in nicely, with minimal 
changes, and you can use the rest of T4 the way it is.

Not so with MT.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 08:18:47 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: In defence of MegaTraveller

> No. The doctor, because he's an expert in his field, has a lower
> chance of performing mediocrity. That is, he has a better chance
> of excellence. That's why he's a doctor. Of course, this applies to
> Routine/Average tasks.

I can see that aspect of it, and I can accept it.

See everyone, I do keep an open mind about these things.


> You fail to address his point about time to perform tasks, mishaps
> and the like. How does KBv2.0 deal with this? Don't get me wrong;
> I'm not attacking you, I'm just curious.

Actually, I use the MT system for time.  I don't think that aspect of 
MT is busted at all.  And, it has nothing to do with either task 
system.  We could be using the TNE task system and use MT's elegant 
time roll to find time.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 08:22:07 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: KBv2.0 as an Optional Rule?

Some have suggested that T4.1 use Marc's current system, but have 
KBv2.0 as an optional rule--maybe in a sidebar or a 2 page chapter.

To get over this problem, I could accept this, and it would give 
players a choice.

...and you wouldn't have to re-write the whole damn book because of 
the MT system.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:54:33 -0900
From: Harry <paharris@postoffice.newnham.utas.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Re: Anomalies stuff

At 04:05 AM 26/06/97 GMT, you wrote:

>Oh yes, I'm filling out failure reports.  If anyone can think of a tactful
>way to say "Your offspring failed because they are rude obnoxious twits who
>do no work, talk continuously, and handed in a nearly blank final exam."
>_please_ email me -- I'm getting desperate :-/

ROTFL

As an ex-high school teacher I sympathise, what you need is a stamp which
says 

"LOSER - shoot immediately"

And that's why I'm an ex-teacher, no respect for the system.


Harry

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:54:09 +0100
From: "Silburn, Luke (Exchange)" <SilburnL@logica.com>
Subject: Can Stat + Skill Be 'Broken'?

David:
<<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 other systems that use Stat + Skill have the two factors
contributing roughly equal portions to the target number. For example in
Ars Magica 3rd, stats ranged between +/-5 and skills generally went up
to about 4-5 (unless the character was very focused). Interestingly
there were a lot of people who felt that that over-emphasised the stat
(even though its much less extreme than T4); so ArM4 has toned down the
stat range (you need to spend virtues to get them above +3 now) and
beefed up skill progression rules (so skills can now much more easily
reach the 3-6 range).

I don't think anyone went so far as to say that ArM3 was 'broken', but I
saw plenty of comments (both within the online ArM community and over on
rec.games.frp.misc) to the effect that it undervalued skills.

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:10:11 +0100
From: Simon Turner <madgamer@mistral.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Task System Blues

On Wed, 25 Jun 97 Glenn Hoppe wrote:

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

Bravo! [Looks around at charging mobs of the various factions ;)] 

>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.

I think you're on to an important point here. To give a computer analogy,
Pseudocode - clear textual definitions which are converted by the programmer
into the language they are using. One of the great advantages of defining
tasks as text as opposed to numbers is they become very easy to convert from
one system to another. The author of the source product is after all giving
a guide as to the difficulty, which you as gamemaster have a right to
change,tweak or ignore.(Honest, a group of balaclava clad I.G. thugs will
not come round to your house - "We are the Traveller inquisition....."
[author looks over his shoulder just in case]). The main thing is your
players go home thinking "That was a great game, I can't wait for next one."
and always has been. This should be dependent of the quality of the game
content not the mechanics used. 





  
- ----------------------------------------------------------
Simon W. Turner     madgamer@mistral.co.uk

"Do not fear going foward slowly, fear only to stand still"

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:28:46 +0100
From: "Silburn, Luke (Exchange)" <SilburnL@logica.com>
Subject: Slum Kid on a Colony

[Ian's plot snipped]
> Could be a fun trip for an ex-slum kid ...
> 
> Ian Whitchurch

Tim:
<<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?>>

The first half of 'The Reality Dysfunction' includes a similar plot (the
author was mumble-Hamilton? Same guy who wrote 'Mindstar Rising' and a
couple of other near-future, post-global warming novels set in East
Anglia of all places...). The book itself is 80% great. The revelation
of the who precisely the main adversaries were was a bit of a let down
and the last third of the book had some really *stupid* situations that
broke my suspension of disbelief entirely. A pity really, because there
were lots of well done Traveller tropes otherwise (and some really
*mean* enhanced mercs with extremely big guns :). I've already decided
that Kinetic Lances are coming into any Traveller campaigns that I run
in future.

Recommend with reservations.

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:43:07 +0100
From: "Silburn, Luke (Exchange)" <SilburnL@logica.com>
Subject: Stat vs Skill. A reprised, reprise.

David:
<<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.>>

I think I see a mismatch in assumptions. Are you basing your analysis on
permitting players to *pick* from the skill lists? IIRC thats an
optional rule in T4 (and not a great one IMO, since it invites all sorts
of mini-maxing abuses unless heavily policed). I might allow *one* skill
per term to be picked during chargen (so that players can focus their
efforts into a skill that they really want their characters to have at a
useful level) but that would be it. The rest get rolled and if they're
rolled then its an iterating probability, which severely curtails the
number of high skill levels that characters end up with.

David:
<<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.>>

True. Or +3 to -3 from a base of 8 (if we are being true to the 1 - 15
range that represents the limits of human possibilities). But skills
will still tend to range from 0 to +3 if they are being randomly
assigned (from groups of six admittedly). Which means that they have a
smaller typical range and thus will contribute a smaller proportion of
the typical target numbers used by T4, even though stats are a more
fundamental attribute and therefore contribute in many more areas than
skills (unskilled tasks, stat checks etc). I agree with you about the
need to make stat increases more expensive in chargen BTW, although the
need becomes less pressing if stats are toned down in the task system.

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

 

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 02:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: T4.1 Task Suggestions (A Compromise Marc Might Like)

Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior) wrote:

>3) Keep the present task system, renaming it the "space opera" style. 
>(Because a character can be good at everything with high attributes.)  
>Make a new system that can use the same task descriptions (in terms of
>skill/attribute/level) but has a different balance, and call that the 
>"hard SF" style.  BOTH systems would be official, and which one is used 
>would be up to the gamers.  Then gaming groups can pick a task system to 
>match their style, and it will still be Traveller.

This is a *great* idea.  The distinction between Space Opera and Hard SF
could be made in another way too.  T4.1 and KB 2.0 both allow very high
degrees of success with Staggering and Impossible tasks. A high skill,
high stat character (5-6 skill 10+ stat) will have an 80% chance with
Staggering tasks and a 40-60% chance with Impossible tasks.  This is fine
for Space Opera, but is wholly unreasonable for anything resembling hard
SF. 

I'd recommend that one system be T4.1, it's Easy to use, and the essence
of Space Opera (highly talented beginners can accomplish wonders). 

For the Hard SF system use some version of MT (the Skill+Stat/3,
4,8,12,16,20 system works for me, but the old MT system could be used.  
You'd need to add in Staggering tasks, but that wouldn't be too hard.  

In this system, like in real life (but unlike Space Opera) the skilled
doctor (or physicist, or marksman) will beat the brash beginning most of
the time, and some tasks have a very low chance of success for even the
best people unless they are very careful (ie drop the difficulty level by
one by taking extra care). 

Include both systems in the main rule book, right next to each other.
clearly label each as to what results it produces, and let folks decide on
the basis of what type of campaign they want. 

Marc, does this sound reasonable?


- -John Snead jsnead@netcom.com

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:27:20 +0100
From: "Silburn, Luke (Exchange)" <SilburnL@logica.com>
Subject: Bye for now

Well.... I'm going to be away from email for much of the next fortnight,
so I'm taking pity on my mailbox and unsubbing.

Its been an interesting ride so far and I look forward to hearing about
how Marc's redesign goes. I haven't had a chance to properly evaluate
the various contenders that folk have been posting, so I'm a Task System
Agnostic. What I think a final framework should do:

1	Declare its assumptions (does skill 4 represent an MD in
practice or a commercially qualified pilot? Then say so.)
2	Match those assumptions. Skills represent knowledge in depth.
Stats represent talent in breadth. The mechanics should favour the
skilled specialist over the talented intern IMO. If I'm flying into
combat; I want a graduate of Top Gun as my wingman, not some kid off a
farm who's dusted a few whomp-rats from the back of his speeder (sorry
Luke....).
3	Retain compatibility of terms (at least) with existing T4
products. There's an installed base out there folks. I'm blessed with a
high disposable income and no other expensive addictions, so I can shrug
off spending UKP20 on a book whose guts are invalidated within 6 months.
I am an exception. IG should not base their marketing strategy on
deluded fools who will buy anything (not that they will).
4	Integrate the task framework with the chargen framework (obvious
I know, but these things should be stated). Someone coming out of a 12
year hitch in <blah> should have skills to reflect that experience. They
should be professionally competant (according to the declared
assumptions from point 1) in at least one skill cluster related to their
previous employment. Possibly two or three if they are exceptional.
5	Recognise that no system is going to be a complete solution that
will satisfy everyone (or even most people). As far as possible it
should provide a clear statement of principles (see 1 above) and
definitions so that the inveterate tinkerers have a common base to work
from. If those principles are expressed in natural English then it
should be possible to have many different flavours of Task resolution
that retain compatibility in their descriptive terms ( Rob's idea of a
hard SF system, a space opera system etc.)
6	Dice? I don't care. I've used any number of strange dice in my
time. Traditionally Traveller is a D6 system, so I'm inclined that way.
But I'll use anything and everything if it gives me a useful (and
readily comprehensible) probablity distribution. Hell, sometimes I go
diceless, use cards or toss coins.

Thats all for now folks....

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 02:42:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Clark <clarkm@OIT.EDU>
Subject: Task Systems

  Ah, geeky discussions that degenerate into flame wars - seems like a
regular feature of TML - been happening every few months in the years I've
been on the list, and looks like it will continue.

  I can't say I really care what sort of task system actually gets
published - I'll likely use my own version of the MT task system, since
that's what i prefer.  The recent discussions I've heard have convinced me
that that's the way to go, especially since I tend to favor a system that
stresses skill over stats.  This list should convince anyone of that - the
degree of knowledge shown by individuals here is due to training in a
specific area, rather than the polymath idea - while I consider myself
rather well educated, especially as a historian, there are areas that I
would never trust myself to do as well as someone with even the most basic
of training.  Any system, KBv2.0 or otherwise, that gives equal weight to
stats as to skills just does not work for me.

  One other comment - while part of my dislike for KBv2.0 comes from the
large number of dice and the way it treats skills vs. stats, I must admit
I get really turned off by the way Kenneth goes about making his
arguements.  I'm sure he's a nice guy in person, but he sure comes across
as a jerk when talking about his task system on TML.

  Anyway, put me down for a vote for a MT-like system, one that stresses
skill over stats, and a firm no to KBv2.0 and the T4 systems.

______________________________
Dr. Mark Clark
Oregon Institute of Technology

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:48:10 +0100
From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Character Generation Pages in WFW95

> << college becomes attractive only to the low-Edu, which 
>  seems perverse!  I don't believe an Edu 6 student can become Edu 8 on 
>  a course which an Edu 8 person doesn't gain a point or two of Edu (in 
>  or out of the classroom).
>   >>

TMM:

> Except that there are skills which also come with the college education. The
> skills are valuable in themselves.

Indeed.  But those skills are just as easily obtained in a career 
(with far more choice).  And it certainly seems as if it will be 
easier to get an Edu increase from that career, for a 
decently-educated character...

I heard a couple of days ago that English Lit. and History graduates 
were in enormous demand by employers.  I have some major doubts about 
the statistic, but in general employers are looking for adaptability, 
ability to present a reasoned argument and social skills in their new 
employees -- even relatively technical firms IME.  These summarise as 
high Int, high Edu, and "social" skills; assuming the first is more 
or less unaffected by education (debatable...) college is providing a 
little technical training, some social opportunities and some general 
Edu.  Part of the reason for "graduate only" jobs is the 
self-selection of graduates as high-Int and (on entry) relatively 
high Edu, but in general it's the Edu increase which makes them 
valuable; the company will teach relevant skills.

Now this is entirely consistent with characteristics being more 
important than skills -- I've always said it was true in real life -- 
and also more general.  That's why a college education is so 
important: it *reliably* gives a boost to Edu (and can be exploited 
to improve it enormously -- it depends on what else you do).

Nick

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 06:33:20 -0400
From: Andy Brick <exeus@compuserve.com>
Subject: Why KBv2.0 is fundamentally flawed

Hi All,

Kenneth, you asked me why I and others had found KBv2.0 unsatisfactory. H=
ere goes -

* Kenneth asked me for the various reasons why people did not like the KB=
v2.0 system. There were
  several -

  (a) That KBv2.0 ( and T4 for that matter ) did not preserve the look an=
d feel of Traveller.
      Traveller uses 2D task rolls. Anything else ain't Traveller. It's l=
ike playing RuneQuest and
      making task rolls on 2D - RuneQuest is a percentile game.

  (b) They wanted to get on and play the game, not spend any time learnin=
g a new task system
      when they already knew one thoroughly which WORKED.

  (c) They wanted to have estimations of how long things took to do, and =
they wanted fine resolution
      of failures to enhance the possibilities for role-playing, and to g=
ive them a consistent
      and fair evaluation of that failure rather than relying on the refe=
ree's arbitrary decisions.
      MT's time increment and mishap system provided that. KBv2.0 has no =
such systems except for
      SF, which was just ONE level of extreme failure.

  (d) Some of them pointed out the x56 flaw below, which destroyed their =
confidence in the system
      overall. They saw this as highly unbalanced compared to MT.

  (e) Those players who had low stat characters felt considerably disadva=
ntaged amongst their fellows.
      Suddenly Int 5 was a major handicap for a character. Characters tha=
t had been played for years
      were altered overnight ; no one wanted their character "crippled" i=
n this way.
      =

  (f) At the other extreme, it devalued things. A player whose favourite =
character had Gun Combat-6 and Dex 7 =

      felt a real sense of achievement whenever he made an Impossible tas=
k roll ( 19+, +6 for skill, +1 for Dex is
      12+ ). With KBv2.0, his needed to roll less than 25 on 7D, where th=
e average roll is 24-25. In other
      words, he would now succeed half the time. The sense of achievement=
 went out the window - Impossible
      was no longer Impossible for him. There was no "challenge" in the g=
ame anymore.

* Multiple dice systems have a serious flaw, as follows -

  Consider the following individuals. One has Edu 2, Medic 1. The other h=
as Edu 2,
  Medic 2. Under KBv2.0, their target numbers are 5 and 8 respectively.

  For a 2D task, the chances of success are 10/36 for target number 5 and=
 26/36 for
  target number 8. So far so good. The Medic-2 has roughly twice the chan=
ce of the
  Medic-1. This doesn't seem unreasonable.

  For a 3D task, the chances of success are 10/216 for target number 5 an=
d 56/216 for
  target number 8. In other words, Medic-2 now has FIVE TIMES the chance =
of succeeding on
  a 3D task as the Medic-1 guy.

  For a 4D task, the chances of success are 5/1296 for target number 5 an=
d 70/1296 for
  target number 8. In other words, Medic-2 now has FOURTEEN TIMES the cha=
nce of succeeding on
  a 4D task as the Medic-1 guy.

  For a 5D task, the chances of success are 1/7776 for target number 5 an=
d 56/7776 for
  target number 8. The Medic-2 guy now has FIFTY-SIX TIMES the chance of =
success as the
  Medic-1 guy.

  Get the picture ?

  This is actually a fundamental flaw of "variable" dice systems. The "ga=
p" between skill
  levels varies considerably per difficulty level and _widens_ both unfai=
rly and rapidly.
  Medic-2 should never be 56x as good as Medic-1, and certainly not as th=
e difficuly increases.

  Here are the results for Edu 7 ( average Education ).

  Dice           Edu 7, Medic-1        Edu 7, Medic-2          Skill Gap
                 Target is 10          Target is 13

  2              33/36                 36/36                   x 1.09
  3              108/216               181/216                 x 1.676
  4              206/1296              575/1296                x 2.791
  5              252/7776              1182/7776               x 4.690

  Although the trend is not so pronounced, it is _still_ there. Why shoul=
d a one point difference
  in skill give higher relative chances as difficulty increases ?

  Now, let's compare that with the MT system. I am doing this from memory=
, so please excuse any
  errors that may creep in -

  Edu 2, Medic 1, Average Task - Basic Roll 7+ , +1 for skill, +0 for sta=
tistic =3D 6+ ( 21/36 )
  Edu 2, Medic 2, Average Task - Basic Roll 7+ , +2 for skill, +0 for sta=
tistic =3D 5+ ( 25/36 )
  Medic-2 is x1.19 more successful than Medic-1 ( compare to x2.6 for KBv=
2.0 )

  Edu 2, Medic 1, Difficult Task - Basic Roll 11+ , +1 for skill, +0 for =
statistic =3D 10+ (  6/36 )
  Edu 2, Medic 2, Difficult Task - Basic Roll 11+ , +2 for skill, +0 for =
statistic =3D  9+ ( 10/36 )
  Medic-2 is x1.66 more successful than Medic-1 ( compare to ~x5 for KBv2=
=2E0 )

  Edu 7, Medic 1, Average Task - Basic Roll 7+ , +1 for skill, +1 for sta=
tistic =3D 5+ ( 25/36 )
  Edu 7, Medic 2, Average Task - Basic Roll 7+ , +2 for skill, +1 for sta=
tistic =3D 4+ ( 28/36 )
  Medic-2 is x1.12 more successful than Medic-1 ( compare to x2.6 for KBv=
2.0 )

  Edu 7, Medic 1, Difficult Task - Basic Roll 11+ , +1 for skill, +1 for =
statistic =3D 9+ (  10/36 )
  Edu 7, Medic 2, Difficult Task - Basic Roll 11+ , +2 for skill, +1 for =
statistic =3D  8+ ( 15/36 )
  Medic-2 is x1.5 more successful than Medic-1 ( compare to ~x5 for KBv2.=
0 )

  So, while there is an increase for MT, it is much smaller than the incr=
ease for KBv2.0, and
  is much more believable. Also, the ratio of Medic-2 success to Medic-1 =
success for MT never
  exceeded the ratio of Medic-2 Skill Level : Medic-1 Skill Level. Allowi=
ng for rounding, the
  two ratios are pretty much the same !

  C'mon Kenneth, are you seriously expecting me to believe that for a 5D =
task roll, a Medic-2 guy is
  56 times as good as Medic-1, yet for a 4D task roll he's only 14 times =
as good ?? =

  =

  NO WAY.

* MegaTraveller has a built in method for determining how long a task tak=
es. KBv2.0 has no such
  method. This is useful for time-critical tasks - the character can esti=
mate how long something
  will take ( 10x the time increment on the task is the AVERAGE time take=
n ) and whether it's
  worth doing or even possible. Also, the time for a hasty task or a caut=
ious task can be determined, =

  and the bonus/penalty for this can be easily determined.

* KBv2.0 equates 1 point of characteristic with 1/3 of a point of skill. =
MegaTraveller is more extreme
  and equates 1 point of characteristic with 1/5 of a point of skill. Per=
sonally I feel that
  MT is closer here than KBv2.0 - consider that Education is the SUM TOTA=
L of a person's education,
  and includes much information that is irrelevant to an individual task =
attempt.

* Kenneth claims that because the chance of regular success can decrease =
in MT as skill level increases,
  MT is flawed. Actually, the OVERALL chance of success increases in MT a=
s skill level increases,
  and the chance of Exceptional Success likewise increases. This means th=
at our Medic-2 guy gets
  ES more often than our Medic-1 guy. This is surely correct.

* MT has the Mishap system, which provides referees with a guideline as t=
o how badly someone has
  screwed up and the time taken to effect repairs. KBv2.0 has no such sys=
tem. Also, MT allows for
  Hazardous and Fateful tasks, which affect the expected level of mishap =
still further. KBv2.0
  just has one level of screw-up, the Spectacular Failure. MT is therefor=
e much more flexible
  in determining the potential outcome of a screw-up. It is also fairer f=
or the players, as they
  don't have to accept an arbitrary outcome from the referee each time th=
ey fumble. Instead,
  there is a consistent mechanism for such things.
  =

So, I put it to you that KBv2.0 is NOT the answer. MT is much better.

Andy Brick
exeus@compuserve.com



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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 11:34:10 +0100
From: Chris Lloyd <cdl@delcam.com>
Subject: Re: The KBv2.0 Challenge

Kenneth Bearden writes:
> 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.

Just a quick response as to where I think KBv2.0 is broken (I think
T4.1 handles this better, but still not right).

Consider a top athlete, about to undergo his first aging crisis:
His dex drops by one, but in the same year he gains a skill point in
athletics.
Using KBv2.0 he's now performing better than ever before.  Those young
whipper snappers have nothing on him.  So long as he keeps going to
the race meetings and practicing he'll be beating them until the day
he dies...

			Chris.

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:15:26 -0700
From: Ian or Katts <ianw@zed.com.au>
Subject: Re : Plot Hook

Tim wrote :

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?"

The bits of the Imperium interested in Moot politics will probably be
surprised at it, but it is a world with a representitive recognized
by the Imperium, so it is a member world. If another Noble, Corp or
whatever tries to take over by force, then someone cries "excessive extra-
planetary influence" and/or "use of local conflict as an excuse for
interplanetary aggression" and call in the Imperial Marines.

The people on the planet would probably sort out some sort of social
structure ... anything from "Broken Hill in Space" to "Lord of the
Flies". Or people could just do their 4 year indenture, and then
ship out on the first transport available, and have a planet with
a constantly transient population.

Ian Whitchurch

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:36:08 -0400
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <brenton@psfc.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Deckplan Question?

>>An easy and workable alternative that I use is 1x1x3.5m regular
>>parallelipeds mapped to squares, this makes each square exactly 1/4 ton.
[snip]
>The winner is the one that does it all MOST differently. I use dTons that
>are 5m3 (1 square = 1x1x2.5m). I changed all Striker I prices to comply
>with HighGuard prices ...

[humorous sarcasm mode on]

I've decided that all deck plans should be based on 4 dimensional
tesseracts measuring 2.83 smoots in all height dimensions, 1.2 smoots and
three ears in width, 2 smoots in length, and, of course (figred using the
4th dimensional equivalent of Pythagoras' theorem), 1.78 smoots in the 4th
dimension measure which I call "petes" in my game.

All volumes must be multiplied by the value proportional to the distance of
the earth to the sun on game night, multiplied by a factor to make it come
out to between 1 and 10 such that the plane of ecliptic of the third
dimension is parralel to the ground (different rules apply on planets
without flat surfaces, of course).

Oh and I converted the supplement "Things You Will Never Need" by Georges
Game Shack into canon TNE measurements such that all the components will be
usable in this scale.

So throw out all your 14m^3 deck plans *and* your 13.5m deckplans.  I have
the system of the future!!!

[humorous sarcasm ode OFF]

You people tend to overthink these things sometimes.

Pete

Peter H. Brenton
"Shiela-X where are you"

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1482
***********************************
