Traveller-digest      Thursday, June 26 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1488



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Task Systems
Re: Oxygen was (Re: Deckplans)
Re: Why KBv2.0 is fundamentally flawed
Re: (no subject)
Re: Space Combat Probabilities
Re: Hardware, firmware, software
Re: Hardware, firmware, software
High Skill Levels -- A Plea to Marc Miller
Re: Re: Anomalies stuff
Re: Task systems. BEST suggestion so far (IMHO)
Re: FS Data Correction
Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1480
Re: Battledress and heroism
Task Solution?
Re: Deckplan Question?
NOTHING TASK RELATED AT ALL
Re: Space Combat Probabilities (moving to beta list)
Re: Space Combat Probabilities
Re: T4 Task Rational
Re: High Skill Levels -- A Plea to Marc Miller

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:05:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ethan Henry <ehenry@mag1.magmacom.com>
Subject: Re: Task Systems

> From: "J." <Jonathan@hccm.co.uk>
> Subject: Task systems.
> 
> Why restrict it to two task systems?

Indeed.

> Look at all the task systems that have been suggested and look for the
> similarities. Each each task system the difficulties are roughly the same.
> 
> So the constants are Skill names, stat names and difficulty levels, 
> my suggestion is whenever a task is printed in an adventure or supplement
> or in JTAS print it only using these things, for example:
> 
>         To put on a Vacc suit
>         Average, DEX, Vacc suit
>         increase difficulty level if in a confined space
>         decrease difficulty level if another character is assisting
> 
> It's easy to understand and it's not specific to any task system. It's usable
> by everyone regardless of rules system without modification (I haven't had
> chance to check the details).

Now, I thought that this was what was already being done, but if it
isn't then it should be!!

I mean, while MT's task system used 2D, etc, etc, did the actual
task descriptions ever actually say much about numbers? Well, I don't
really care what they did, I think that in the future, they shouldn't
talk about numbers at all.

And, on an off topic, while I can see that Kenneth's posting style
bothers a number of people on the list, it doesn't bother me that much,
so I can only assume it's somehow possible to read his posts without getting
worked up. Personally, I find them more sleep-inducing than annoying.
I realize that Kenneth is pretty, uh, vigorous in his, ah, "pushing"
of his task system, but I figure that Kenneth is less annoying than
television, lots of people watch television, therefore Kenneth should
be tolerable by lots of people.

I don't love the man or anything, but I think people should be fair.

Ethan
- -- 
ehenry@magma.ca                                  http://www.magma.ca/~ehenry

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 23:31:06 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Oxygen was (Re: Deckplans)

> Isn't it the partial pressure of O2 that does it. 1 ATM air (20% O2) is the
> same as 0.2 ATM pure O2 both for breathing purposes and fire hazards.

There is a small effect due to the heat capacity of the diluent nitrogen - 
the presence of nitrogen means that auto-ignition temperatures are higher and 
flame speeds lower than they would be in a low pressure pure oxygen 
atmosphere.


Simon (a Chemical Engineer)

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:50:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: JumpSix@aol.com
Subject: Re: Why KBv2.0 is fundamentally flawed

In a message dated 97-06-26 07:38:41 EDT, you write:

<<       Traveller uses 2D task rolls. Anything else ain't Traveller. It's
like playing RuneQuest and
       making task rolls on 2D - RuneQuest is a percentile game. >>
I agree! Yay!

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:49:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: JumpSix@aol.com
Subject: Re: (no subject)

In a message dated 97-06-26 07:09:57 EDT, you write:

<< > Vilani Beach BBQ!!!!!
 > 
  
 Hot Damn, Just made up a couple of liters of Hot & Sweet BBQ Sauce!!!
 Got some pickled K'Kree hocks in the root celler.
 
 Hey Harold, NO Hiver corndogs this time..
 
 8-p Mmmm, Mmmm, Good I just loves BBQ.
 
  >>
I'll make sure I bring my famous (on the Rim anyway) Solomani Slaw!

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 19:52:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: Space Combat Probabilities

In a message dated 97-06-26 18:52:34 EDT, you write:

<< 
 >Well, I've already run into a slight difficulty--the range bands are WAY
 >too granular. 
 
 *Big* surprise. I'm fairly sure I complained about this already earlier.
 You can use fractional range bands - 5000/16000/50000/160000 for some
 improvement (there's some provision for this in my sensor rules.)
 
 Bruce
  >>

Are we talling about 30,000 km range bands?

Marc

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

Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 23:42:48 -0400
From: "Eric Freitas" <edf@atlantic.net>
Subject: Re: Hardware, firmware, software

> M$ Windoze sucks!!!! Bill Gates is the Antichrist!!!! Microsloth Orafice 

That should be the NTChrist...

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

Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 23:40:22 -0400
From: "Eric Freitas" <edf@atlantic.net>
Subject: Re: Hardware, firmware, software

> I was wondering what computers/operating systems people here use?  I've
> seen quite a few mentions of Macs and only a few Unix/Windows/Dos.
> 
486/133 win95

My favorite was an Amiga1200, that I don't waste time on any more.

Eric

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com>
Subject: High Skill Levels -- A Plea to Marc Miller

Marc-

I appreciate the work you are doing on the task system. While I find the
current system to be far from perfect, and would like T4.1 to have a
system more like MT (or even KB 1.1, if MT is not possible), I love the
character generation system. 

Currently, GMs can (if they desire) use everything in T4 except the task
system.  Char Gen is close enough to CT & MT (not identical, but close
enough) that scenarios can easily be adapted back and forth.  One GM can
adapt _The Traveller Adventure_ to T4, while another can play T4 using the
CT or MT task system.  The whole point of T4 was compatiblity. 

Kenneth Bearden mentioned some type of rumor about skills going from 1-15.
*Please* do not do this.  Such a move would remove all compatibility in
both directions.  I would cease to buy T4.1 products because it would be
too much trouble to adapt them to the MT task system (which is what I
prefer and use in my own games).  Similarly, other people could no longer
easily adapt CT & MT characters and adventures to T4.1. 

I have strong feelings about the task system, but I have much stronger 
feelings about the issue of compatibility.  I for one will accept *any*
of the task systems suggested over a radical change in character generation.

Sincerely-


- -John Snead jsnead@netcom.com

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 00:51:47 +0000
From: Garry Ward <Garry.E.Ward@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Re: Anomalies stuff

At 03:46 PM 6/26/97 +0000, Doug Berry wrote:
><snip>
>>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 :-/
>
>Your children enjoy an active social life, and are always open with their
>opinions and comments in class.  They do need to focus more on the assigned
>work, however.
>
>
Or, how about: Your children have excellent prospects for a future in politics

Garry

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 20:43:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matrixs@aol.com
Subject: Re: Task systems. BEST suggestion so far (IMHO)

     Typically, I make it all up as i go along and Damn the rules! You see,
this is the benefit of refereedom.  You people are entirely too structured
(well, some are).  I dont confuse myself with rules, regulations, standards,
taskings, figures, techniques, numbers, dice or mice. If I wish something to
happen, it usually does.  If, on the other hand, I wish it not to happen, it
usually does'nt.  Neat huh?
     Let us ramble on a bit.  I know all of you referees have, in the past,
ignored this die roll, or that difficulty level.  It is the nature of the
beast.  And guess what? Your the beast! 
      Its your game!  The rules are but distractions for the players
 (players! what a contradiction! It is we who play them, they should be the
playee's)  Basically we do what we want (at least I do).  I enjoy watching my
subjects (players) wriggle under pressure or elate with joy.  But its all,
and remember this, your decision.  Damn the rules!
     Hehehe, admit it.  Its true

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:40:46 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: FS Data Correction

At 04:03 PM 6/26/97 -0400, you wrote:

>I was wondering if there were still people on this list who were working out 
>problems with the M:0/FS sector data.  It seems the Great Task Debate has 
>preempted it somewhat.

Well, I'm still interested..

>In any case, I submit for your approval, my own unofficial personal changes 
>to the Core Sector Data, to make it somewhat reasonable to play with the M:0 
>Book.

<a lot snipped>

Does anyone have plans to put this into either Galactic or Hexmap?  Or just
as a .txt file?  I sold my copy of FS back to the gamestore, and could use
the corrected data.
- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry         dberry@hooked.net   |
| Gearhead & Planetologist, Traveller since 1977 |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|************************************************|
|    "Traveller assumes a remote centralized     |
|   government (referred to in this volume as    |
|    the Imperium)...                            |
|       -Introduction, Book 4: Mercenary (1978)  |
+------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:38:19 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1997 #1480

>Well, Eris, I think Doug Berry has a _much_ better description of
>skill levels at his web page, so without permission...
>from http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/housrule.html, which is pretty darn funny:

You dare raid my pages!?!  A squad of TL14 Solomani Troops will be along
presently to hold you down while the CNN Crossfire team debates Traveller
task revesions!  Such is my wrath!

This coming from the guy who can't pass a web page without at least
grabbing the wallpaper, "just in case".

*Sigh*  The one Silly Era page that I haven't gotten around to revising yet..


- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry         dberry@hooked.net   |
| Gearhead & Planetologist, Traveller since 1977 |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|************************************************|
|    "Traveller assumes a remote centralized     |
|   government (referred to in this volume as    |
|    the Imperium)...                            |
|       -Introduction, Book 4: Mercenary (1978)  |
+------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:52:41 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Battledress and heroism

At 01:32 PM 6/26/97 -0700, Chris Griffen wrote:

>Douglas E. Berry wrote:

>>Chris, as a former sniper, I was able to put 3 rounds through a half-inch
>>target at 150m.  Doesn't it stand to reason that someone with a phenominal
>>level of skill could find the weak point (visor, joints, etc..) and put one
>>round where it counts?
>
>Yes, but the MT rules allow you to make that shot while the individual in
>battledress is moving at full speed. No sniper can make that shot without a
>*serious* amount of luck. Now if the battledress wearer is moving slowly or
>perfectly still, sure, a shot could be made at a joint.

If the target is moving directly towards you, it becomes that much easier..
a target moving across your field of fire is *very* difficult.  Of course,
if I even think that the BD equipped trooper doesn't know where I am, I'm
not going to shoot.

A big part of sniping is knowing when to shoot, along with knowing how to
shoot.

>Consider the shot that felled that first bank robber in L.A. a couple of
>months ago. The sniper nailed him in the head because he had virtually
>stopped moving. If he were running or even trotting, all the sniper could
>hope for would be a lucky shot.

Police snipers will always wait for the perfect shot.. in the LAPD
fire-fight, the numbers of civilians in the area precluded the quick
application of effective return-fire.  (That and the need to borrow weapons
from a local gun dealer!)  The person in my scenario doesn't have that
luxury, she needs to shoot.. NOW.

>>Plus, the game is supposed to be *heroic*.. I don't want to have to have to
>>tell a player that it's impossible to stop the charging Consular Guard.. I
>>want him to know that he has a 1-in-a-hundred chance of making the shot.. I
>>want to see sweat on those dice..  :)
>
>I hear ya, but the odds with the MT system, unfortunately, are much better
>than 1-in-100.

So the characters survive a little longer..  I really don't like games
where PC death is caused by anything short of gross stupidity.  I never let
random event kill off well crafted PCs.

>As for the game being heroic, what about when the *PCs* are the ones
>wearing the battledress? They're subject to the same rules. This whole
>scenario that I brought up was from a real gameplaying experience. One of
>my players back in the MT days worked very hard to save up enough credits
>to buy a suit of light battledress. Once he acquired it, he soon became
>frustrated with the fact that he was still getting hit and seriously
>wounded with great frequency.

He's learned the Tanker's Lesson:  You are not immortal just because you
are surronded by 60 tons of armor.  That player had to learn (the hard way)
to use sound tactics in conjunction with the improved abilities conferred
by his armor.

>The game can be heroic and realistic at the same time, but what's the point
>of heroism if it wasn't earned? If you're facing a guy in battledress, you
>better have some form of heavy weapon or man-portable high-energy weapon at
>hand or the best form of heroism should be to run like hell! <g>

Or make that miracle shot that my wife *still* brags about  :)


- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry         dberry@hooked.net   |
| Gearhead & Planetologist, Traveller since 1977 |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|************************************************|
|    "Traveller assumes a remote centralized     |
|   government (referred to in this volume as    |
|    the Imperium)...                            |
|       -Introduction, Book 4: Mercenary (1978)  |
+------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 97 01:03:00 GMT 
From: s.johnson107@genie.com
Subject: Task Solution?

> Maybe we can have a part in Advanced Chargen listing licences
> (ie Drive, Pilot, Medicine, et al) , where a character can be
> reconided in the imperium to be able to legally practice those
> skills, whith lesser skills representing hobbies, and other things.
    BINGO!  I've been listening to the Task System debate and, with growing
desperation, wishing we could... "Now Return To Our Regularly Scheduled
Programming" STS. ;) But as I've listened in I've been swung back and forth as
each person in turn has made their points, and quite ably too I might add.
But, I still have problems with the T4 System, and that's before anyone brings
up the subject of that $&%*#@! HALF DIE.
    The real problem with the Task System in T4, and what a great many are
objecting to, is the handful of glaring errors/problems.  I'll yank out the
most basic, Medical 3, as an excellent example.  I don't care if Joe Munchkin
the MedTech has FFFFF7 & Medical 1, he's NOT going to be a better DOCTOR then
Joe Average 777777 & Medical 3.  Why?  Because being a Doctor is a LEARNED
SKILL, it has very little to do with Stats.  Sure, being highly educated and
intelligent helps, but those only SUPPORT the SKILL of being a Doctor.
    Let me put this another way...
    You, PERSONALLY, have just taken three large calibur bullets to the
chest... in REAL LIFE.  No armor, no warning, YOU are on your back, staring at
the sky, and your body is racing to see which kills you first; the shock, the
internal organ/tissue damage or blood loss.  Now the Rescue Team manages to get
you into the hospital in time for an opperation to remove the bullets and patch
you up so you don't bleed to death internally or elsewhere.  Question!
    Do you want the MedTech to perform the Surgery?  Or the Thorasic Surgeon
with ten years experience, five in an Army MASH unit, and three before that in
Emergency Medicine?  In RL if you pick the MedTech... PLEASE make me the
beneficiary of your Estate! ;) In RL the fact the MedTech is brillant and is
working on his third Phd is not important, in RL you want the Doctor.  After
all in RL it's YOUR LIFE that's at stake.
    Now while T4 is a game and I can handle quite a number of flaws to increase
playability and the like...  What T4's Task System does is create a paradigm of
How the world works, it's a loose one, but it's a paradigm none the less.  And
like any paradigm when you run into something the paradigm can't handle that
doesn't mean the problem is wrong, it means the paradigm is flawed. ;) And I've
just demonstrated that the T4 paradigm of handling skills is badly flawed.
    Some how we have to decouple what a skill does or allows you to do, from
any specific skill level it's self.  Because otherwise High Stats can really
screw things up and you get a MedTech that's a better Doctor because they
rolled Medical once on their career path and have Stats of A's; then a Doctor
who's career path IS Medical and who's Stats are 7's.  Perhaps we can just say
that to be a Doctor you have to be Licensed and you automatically are if you
have...
    Edu 8+ & Medical 3+
    Off the top of my head no less, and say to be Licensed to perform major
surgery you need...
    Dex 8+ as well, or maybe Int 8+ ::shrug:: I don't know, but this would
solve a lot of my problems with the T4 Task System and provide a LOT of
roleplaying potential to boot.
    What ever is done though... GET RID OF THAT &$%*@#$! HALF DIE!!!!!

Stephen

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 19:43:14 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Deckplan Question?

At 10:27 am 06/26/97 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Anders writes
>
>>While fidgeting with the design system I did some
>>TL changes as well
>
>>9-     No gravitics tech yet
>>       This was in order to have jump-capable non grav systems
>
>A man after my own heart! One of my favourite periods to design 
>spacecraft for is "low TL9" - societies with every aspect of TL9 except
>gravitics. (For example, I like to assume the Terrans didn't independently
>discover gravitics but copied it from the Vilani...) It's lots of fun to
>design TL9 spacecraft without grav - I had some FFS AZHRAE shuttles I was
>very proud of. My first TTA project will be a TL9 shuttle - probably 
>using a gas-core NTR since AZHRAE is gone.

	Huh? Who swiped it? Although Guy changed the abbreviation to AZH, I
believe, not caring for "ass-ray" <G>
- -- 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: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 20:08:31 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: NOTHING TASK RELATED AT ALL

>>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 :-/
>
>How about "Your offspring is a fine example of what the American
>educational system seems to want to produce, despite the honest efforts of
>the decent teachers in the system."  (Is Canada suffering from this?  I had
>a friend in the American system recently get severely castigated for giving
>a trig problem in which one measured the height of the mast on a yacht,
>given a length of rope and an angle, as the problem was not "properly non
>judgmental about economic status, and gave excessive advantage to coastal
>students."
>
>Alternatively, "Your offspring is best used as fertilizer."

	I like Dilbert's "Genetically predisposed toward suboptimal performance"

	or "Your son is deprivin a village somewhere of an idiot"
- -- 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: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 20:07:58 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Space Combat Probabilities (moving to beta list)

At 07:57 am 06/26/97 +0100, you wrote:
>>For those who are interested, and want to discuss creating a detailed
>>system, my first cut at the calculations are posted at
>>
>>        http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj/Traveller/SpaceCombat.html

>Well thank you. There obviously has to be more range bands than 50 000 km,
>500 000 km and it seems to me that 50 000 km, 150 000 km, 500 000 km seems
>OK (the original range bands for the sensor calculations Bruce did
>methinks). There's a minor error in a formula at the website: s = (amax
>t^2)/2, you forgot to divide by 2 at least in the formula as I haven't
>checked your numbers yet. 

	Which equation? Distance=1/2 * a * t^2; time lag is 2R/c, which works out
to 0.5 * a * (2R/c)^2 = 0.5 * a * 4 * (R/c)^2 = 2 a (R/c)^2, right?

>BTW when doing calculations for a range band do
>you use the upper limit of the band or the average range? For the
>5,15,50,150 progression I use 3,10,30,100 for my calculations (I use the
>5,15,50 progression for personal combat, vehicular combat and space
>combat).

	I was using the upper limit of the band, just for rough analysis purposes
for now. More refined calculations come as work allows me time. That'll
include constant time delay for computer calculations (based on computer
factor like you suggested would be an excellent idea!), errors in the
sensor fix and velocity calculations, accounting for the fact that the
evasive maneuvers won't be uniformly distributed in the perpendicular
plane, etc.

Now that I've piqued some folks' interest, I think this discussion should
move to the beta list to avoid being swamped by the rising heat emanating
from the task wars...
- -- 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: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 20:09:46 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Space Combat Probabilities

At 07:52 pm 06/26/97 -0400, CardSharks@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 97-06-26 18:52:34 EDT, you write:
>
><< 
> >Well, I've already run into a slight difficulty--the range bands are WAY
> >too granular. 
> 
> *Big* surprise. I'm fairly sure I complained about this already earlier.
> You can use fractional range bands - 5000/16000/50000/160000 for some
> improvement (there's some provision for this in my sensor rules.)
> 
> Bruce
>  >>
>
>Are we talling about 30,000 km range bands?

	No, I was using the 500/5,000/50,000/500,000 progression we used in FF&S2
... if that's not the correct set of bands, we need to go back and redo all
the sensors and communicators...

	For those not interested in surfing the web to find the derivation of
these numbers, or the numbers themselves, here's the summary:

	Assuming you have a perfect lock on the target (perfect knowledge of
position and velocity), allowing for lightspeed lag, and not knowing which
way the target will dodge, your chances of hitting a 100Disp Ton sphere
(radius: 6.9 meters) that can evade at 1G are around:

      500km      100%
      5,000km    100%
      50,000km    86%
      500,000km    1%

	That's a pretty big jump! However, 30,000km range bands work just fine.
Here's the percentages, along with generic difficulty labels I'd expect

      30,000km    94%  (Easy)
      60,000km    80%
      90,000km    63%  (Routine)
     120,000km    47%  
     150,000km    34%  
     180,000km    24%  (Difficult)
     210,000km    17%  
     240,000km    12%  (Formidable)
     300,000km     7%
     500,000km     1%  (Impossible)

	Note that I slapped my analysis together rather quickly and haven't had a
chance yet to refine it. There may be minor errors in the percentages
above, for a purely random shot, but they should be close. Next plan: add
in sensor errors (NOBODY can get perfect sensor data), computer processing
time, etc.
- -- 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: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 19:29:58 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rational

At 11:58 pm 06/25/97 -0700, you wrote:
>seem odd, even with characters with skills.  Also, general reading
>is not skill-1.  (I'm not sure a CPR class is Medical-1 either,

	Never claimed it was. In fact, I didn't even claim it was Level-0. To me,
a breadth of general knowledge below the Skill-0 level is EDU.

>>skill). It was their medical knowledge, pure and simple.
>
>Well, I simply don't agree.  I have met a lot of people I would
>_never_ want to treat me in an ER.  A smart guy with a minimum of
>training will know enough not to do something that will kill me.

	Oh? If he hasn't had the training not to do something, how will he know
not to do it? Not everything is "intuitively obvious" or what's the purpose
of training in the first place.
>I'm not sure I have the same trust in an incompetant who will messed
>up what he never really got down in the training. The point is that all

	If he's incompetent then he won't have skill-4, and I wouldn't want him
treating me either. Skill levels don't represent how much training you've
*received*, they reflect how much ability you've *gained* from the
training. Otherwise I could sit a chimpanzee down in front of a VCR for
four years, and give him his medical degree.

>Well, the problem is that you have skill-0 in heart surgery.  You

	No, I don't. I don't have any skill in heart surgery, and every version of
Traveller so far has made a clear distinction between "Skill-0" and "No Skill"

>could also be a highly trained dermatologist and not be the person
>to perform heart surgery.  Also, you could be take someone with
>shakes in his hands and who couldn't even handle high school
>and give him training heart surgery and I still wouldn't want

	But this theoretical feeble-minded palsied person would never be able to
LEARN heart surgery, and hence wouldn't have the skill level-4. And that's
what I've been saying over and over again: I'd rather have Dex-7 Med-4 do
the surgery than Dex-15 Med-1. The Med-1 won't even know where to start, or
much about the anatomy of the heart, or anything.

>What you are doing is poking holes based on the fact that, as
>in any game, you have to generalize skills.  This can lead to
>problems but there is not really any way around it and leave
>the game playable.

	And what you seem to be doing is redefining skills. To me, a skill is "the
ability to use one's knowledge effectively and readily in execution or
performance" (Websters). Not how much training somebody has ignored.

>>	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:
>[Gratitously long list of intellegence based skills deleted...]

	Not particularly gratuitous--those are the skills listed on pp39-47 of T4
which are controlled by EDU (not int)

>Well, no.  Even with reading you still have skill-0.  You need
>skill-1 to suceed (in general, of course GM can make exceptions).

	Not in any version prior to T4, and often not in T4. You can make rolls
with Skill-0.

> I would rather have an intellegent person who has only 1/4 year
>of training (or whatever skill-1 means) than Forest Gump with
>several years of experience.

	EXPERIENCE IS NOT SKILL! 

	ABILITY IS SKILL!

>>	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.
>
>Do you really know just how many systems you have just called
>"fundamentally flawed and unuseable"?  This maybe your opinion,
>but I would consider the fact that much of the gaming world outside
>of Traveller before you state your opinion as fact.

	Much of the world outside of Traveller is irrelevant to me, because
Traveller is the only gaming system I have bothered with in many years. And
yes, it is my opinion, intended and noted as such.

>>	Oh, BTW, I firmly reject the notion that this will come down to a
>>tradeoff
>>between playability and believability.
>
>Well, some of you nits are so picky that they do (even for nonskill+stat
>systems).  

	How can it be nitpicky to say that a first-year med student with little or
no knowledge of cardiac anatomy (or neurophsiology, if you like the brain
surgery metaphor better) cannot possibly be better at open heart surgery or
brain surgery than a thoroughly-trained and SKILLED med school graduate,
REGARDLESS of innate characteristics.

- -- 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: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 02:51:07 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: High Skill Levels -- A Plea to Marc Miller

 
> Kenneth Bearden mentioned some type of rumor about skills going from 1-15.

Correction, I did not mention this.  Marc mentioned this in his post.

Kenneth.

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1488
***********************************
