Traveller-digest       Friday, June 27 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1490



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Task Based Combat
Re: KB 3.0 support reiteration...
Re: T4.1 Task Suggestions
Re: In defence of MT...and more...
Re: The KBv2.0 Challenge
Re: Rule of Man (ROM) TL
T4 Task debate (again)
Re: TL of the Rule of Man (Don't call it Ramshackle!)
Re: The MT task system was *FAR* from perfect...
Re: Pistols at 900 paces!
Re: Rule of Man (ROM) TL
Re: Battledress and heroism
Re: Generic Task Descriptions
Re: T4 Task Rational

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 00:28:41 -0500
From: "vanya" <vanya@partyline.net>
Subject: Task Based Combat

> From: William F. Hostman <aramis@asylumbbs.com>
> This would work GREAT if only the COMBAT rules were crossed over to using
> modifiers to difficulty level, rather than target number... thusly
freeing
> combat from being task-system specific (as it is in T4.0).

This is something that definitely needs to be done.  As the T4.1 rulebook
takes shape, now is the time to fix some of the little details as well. 
Make T4.1 a truly task-based game, in all respects, and get rid of many of
the tables with row upon row of combat modifiers.

Below is quoted a section of text from Joe D. Fugate, in MT Journal #4 (pg
98).  Although most have probably already read it, I feel that his words
are much better at explaining my beliefs than my own:

"A prime motivation behind the task system was to eliminate rolls like the
following:

Need 8+ to hit the grav tank.
DMs:
if excellent visibility, +1
if poor visibility, -1
if night, -4
if raining, -2
if snowing, -3
if foggy, -4
if using electronic sights, +2
if using maser sights, +3
if target moving, -2
if attacker moving, -2
if light vegetation, -1
if dense vegetation, -2

Yukl People have tried to do this with the task system like this:

To hit the grav tank:
Routine, gunnery (Confrontation)
Referee:	Also apply the following DMs to this task:
if normal visibility, -1
if poor visibility, -2
if night, -5
if foggy, -1
if using electronic sights, +1
if using maser sights, +2
if target moving, -2
if attacker moving, -2
if light vegetation, -1
if dense vegetation, -2

No, no, no! The problem is either: you are doing too much with one task, or
you need to alter difficulty levels in place of throwing in a bunch of DMs.
You should limit you rself to two DM items max per offender or defender.
For example, I would rewrite the above task as follows:

To hit the grav tank:
(varies), off-gunnery, sensor DM; def-terrain, def DM
(confrontation)
if defender stationary: Difficult,+4
if attacker or defender moving: Difficult,+2
if both moving: Diflicult,+O
Referee:	Increase this task by one difficulty level if ...itisnight
it is bad weather (e.g., raining, snowing, or foggy) These increases are
cumulative.

See how much simpler this is? The difficulty increase for night and/or bad
weather is intuitive enough I could almost guess how to do it. And with the
technique of "fine-tuning" difficulty levels, the moving/not moving problem
is nearly intuitive too. However, a variable difficulty task is more
complicated than a task with only one difficulty, so use the variable
difficulty task sparingly. If possible, refer the gamer to a simple chart
with the difficulty changes noted on the chart (like the MegaTraveller
direct fire difficulty tables on page 72 of the Players' Manual). Ideally,
keep the changes consistent from column to column so the chart is easy to
commit to memory."

- -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: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 05:48:49 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: KB 3.0 support reiteration...

On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 22:45:28 -0400, Roderick Darroch Elliott wrote:

> 	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.

A good point.  Whatever system that appears in T4.1 must bear a
resemblance to what appeared in T4.  The MT task system generates
results that an *NOT* compatible with the T4 task system.  How do you
write a module if one group of gamers (using a MT system) generates SS
far more frequently than another group of gamers (using "vanilla" T4)?

> 	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.

Eeeek!  Run on sentence!  Gasp!  Gasp! :)



James W. Lindsay     Vancouver, British Columbia
  "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"

"Give me the strength to change the things I can,
    the grace to accept the things I cannot,
         and a great big bag of money."

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 05:48:50 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: T4.1 Task Suggestions

On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:57:26 +0100, Anders Backman wrote:

> >2) Instead of specifying difficulty, specify the skill level where t=
his is an
> >average task, then roll against attribute (or using attribute as mod=
ifier).
> >Possessing more or less skill changes the difficulty.  Might be a cl=
oser
> >model of reality, but invalidates a lot of books.
>=20
> Look at Eris (and mine) system.
>=20
> >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 th=
e "hard
> >SF" style.  BOTH systems would be official, and which one is used wo=
uld be up
> >to the gamers.  Then gaming groups can pick a task system to match t=
heir
> >style, and it will still be Traveller.
>=20
> Hurray, applause. As Marc asked us to come up with alternatives to th=
e
> broken T4, T4.1 systems instead of bickering about this and that and
> dreaming wishful dreams about MT (the PERFECT systems if we only chan=
ge
> that, and that, and that=8A)
> I'd say keep T4.1 as the Space Opera system and add KBv2.0 as the Har=
d SF
> system.
> This should be the end of the discussion except the endless
> bickering/flamewar that will drag on until something new to bicker/fl=
ame
> comes up.

"All I need is a big rock, and a thruster plate to steer her by."

                                       -someone famous

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 05:48:49 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: In defence of MT...and more...

On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 21:59:43 -0500, Andrew Akins wrote:

> I got the feeling that this is one of those things where people aren't
> gonna budge...but here's my take:
> 
> The problem is our differing definitions - every point that someone has
> offered to support MT has been true - and every rebuttle by Kenneth has
> been true as well.
> 
> Skills vs. Stats
> ------------------------------------------
> In KBv2, skills and stats are "equivalent". In MT, skills outweigh stats.
> So which is better? That depends entirely on your philosophy of gaming. I
> favor the MT view. I can provide no concrete, statistical reason - it just
> sits well with my definition. If you believe the two are equalent -- you
> gotta go with KBv2.

Skill *points* and stat *points* are equivalent... skills still
outweigh stats in KBv2.0 (that was what prompted him to create his
task system in the first place).

> The Stat/5 problem
> ------------------------------------------
> Kenneth claims that the division during combat, as your stats change (from
> damage), detracts from the MT system. He may see it that way, but I have NO
> problem remembering 1-4 = 0, 5-9=+1, 10-14=+2 and 15-19=+3. Again, opinions
> may vary.

I believe Marc's vote is against recalculations of any kind due to
injury, although I might be wrong.

> The spectacular success problem
> ------------------------------------------
> Kenneth seems to have a problem with the fact that his doctor has a smaller
> chance for a "normal" success than the medic, even though he has an overall
> better chance of any kind of success...I must admit that this one stumps
> me...I simply don't comprehend it as a problem. The doctor is good...heck,
> he's great! Most of his procedures, when of average difficulty, are going
> to be spectacular. This is exactly how I envision it.

No problems here!

> The number of dice
> ------------------------------------------
> This is purely an opinion thing - just like the half-die. Some people don't
> mind it. OThers hate it. Some people don't mind rolling seven dice. Others
> want only two. While you can do some statistical handwaving to support a
> particular dice system, peoples desires are important as well. I prefer 2
> dice. No other reason other than I like it.

I agree that this is a personal decision, but nearly all RPGs today
(that don't simply use d%) roll more than 2 dice at some point.  I
don't see multiple dice deterring newbie Traveller players from
purchasing a copy of T4.x.


James W. Lindsay     Vancouver, British Columbia
  "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"

"Give me the strength to change the things I can,
    the grace to accept the things I cannot,
         and a great big bag of money."

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 05:48:49 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: The KBv2.0 Challenge

On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 21:45:27 -0500, vanya wrote:

> > 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."

This may be true, but there can only be _one_ (possibly two) task
systems printed in the new T4.1 master rulebook.  To add more would
simply be confusing, just like there is only one included character
generation system and one included space combat system.

> **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".

I believe what Ken meant was that stat *points* and skill *points* are
weighed equally.  KBv2.0 multiplies skills by three (3).  MT divides
stats by five (5).  *Both* systems assume that skills dominate stats.
The multipliers might be different, but that is only due to the
fundamental differences between the two systems.  If Ken's system is
broken because of this, so is MT.

> **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. 

I agree with this statement, even though I am currently listed with
those voting for KBv2.0.  Perhaps Ken's system can be tweaked to allow
SS to appear more frequently.

> **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.  

Rolling more or less dice shouldn't alter your perceptions of
Traveller.  If they are, you might be spending too much time within
the mechanics of the game and not enough time playing in the Traveller
universe :)

Please don't view me as Ken's pet lap dog.  I am speaking for his
proposed system, not for him.  His system is not without its flaws,
but it *is* "backwards-compatible" with the T4 system (with only a
minor amount of tweaking).

MT is not.  For Marc to adopt the MT system, he would also have to
rewrite the personal combat, space combat, and psionics systems as
well.  I am not interested in buying MT2.

James W. Lindsay     Vancouver, British Columbia
  "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"

"Give me the strength to change the things I can,
    the grace to accept the things I cannot,
         and a great big bag of money."

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 08:34:56 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Rule of Man (ROM) TL

>3) What tech does it take to genetically alter a non-sapient species to
>   sapience (i.e. dolphins)?
>
>
>All of the above were accomplished by the Terran Confederation BEFORE the
>Rule of Man.

Who says Dolphins aren't sapient? ;)


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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 01:28:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: Brad Vender <vender@plains.NoDak.edu>
Subject: T4 Task debate (again)

First, I'd like to say that I haven't purchased a copy of T4 yet, and that
I probably won't be able to in the near future, but I'd like to offer some
comments to the debate:

  1.  What I really liked about the MT skill system was the following:
      a.  A simple task was highly likely to succeed.
      b.  Given average attributes (7-11) and a level two skill, routine
          tasks became simple.  Okay, so I did prefer rounding, and
          that skews my perception slightly, but so be it.
      c.  The most that exceptionally high or low attributes could do was 
          confer one skill level bonus or penalty to a trained individual.
          Stats were nice to have, but not overly important.

  2.  Point 1c seemed to go allong with the atmosphere of the game and the 
      character sheets (which were supposedly TAS informational forms).
      Along with some of the interpersonal tasks (which were slightly 
      annoying to use, but a nice try) where one could reasonably expect that
      testing could be carried out using the games mechanics, along with the
      occasional horrible data entry/testing errors.

  3.  If T4 can convey the same sense that MT did about the relationship
      between attributes and skills (average attributes and 2 or 3 skill
      points constitues professional ability, so that you don't worry about
      carrying out day to day tasks), then it doesn't matter to me how
      the task system is implemented.  What really matters to me as a ref
      is how quickly I can get used to the task system, mainly so that I
      know what stats to throw on the NPCs for the desired level of difficulty
      in my campaign.

      If for some reason, T4 decides that stat+skill>=10 is professional,
      then that's fine.  If difficulty reduces by one level for each
      additional 10 points of the total, again that's fine.  Its not like
      I really bothered to write numbers down ahead of time anyway.

      Of course, more importantly, the faster I can develop an idea of how
      the mechanics of the task system behave, the sooner I can explain
      to the players what's really important, and the more they can get
      out of the introductory session (the one where people largely mess
      mess around, start fights, etc., just to see how the physics of this
      new world behave).

  4.  Just one important point:  Unless the task system is constructed 
      just right, there is no way that exact compatibility with CT or MT
      is possible (which would mean, of course, having exactly the same
      task system as CT or MT, which by the way, don't either).
      Just please don't try to tell the CS/EE/Math/Gearhead readers of your
      material by stating that the new task system does something that it
      doesn't do, since that only leads to unsound systems and confusion.

- --Brad

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 02:24:00 -0400
From: hdhale@siscom.net (Harold Hale)
Subject: Re: TL of the Rule of Man (Don't call it Ramshackle!)

Ethan Henry writes:

>Not to mention that the Terrans were probably busy doing things that,
>in hindsight, were totally foolish, like trying to upgrade massive
>amounts of Vilani technological infrastructure to bring it in line
>with Terran "standards". 

   This would not have been foolish at all, at least for Terran
industrialists.  Upgrading everything in the Vilani Imperium would cost
untold amounts of MCr, and the only source for the upgrades (at least
initially) would be worlds that were part of the Terran Confederation. 
This would make the Vilani economically dependent on the Terrans for
many years to come.

>IIRC, the "capitol" of the RoM moved steadily away from Terra,
>going coreward as the war front pushed farther and farther away
>from Terra. At one point, the capitol of the RoM was about halfway
>between Terra and Sylea, again, IIRC. 

   The first capital of the Rule of Man was Dingir in the Solomani Rim,
though many bureaucratic functions were still handled on Vland.  Hiroshi
II and his successors later moved the capital to the more centrally
located world of Hub/Ershur.  The capital remained there for many years,
but by -1776 the location of the capital was largely dependent upon
where the various claimants to the throne where headquartered.

>No doubt the corridor between Terra and the current capitol would 
>contain a lot of worlds that had signifigant high TL production 
>capacity. In the end, at least some of these worlds would be closer 
>to Sylea than Terra.

   While it is true that a flood of settlers entered Diaspora sector,
and other regions of the former Vilani Imperium, we need to define "high
TL production capacity".  True TL 12 industrial worlds (if that's what
you are talking about) would have taken decades to upgrade to that TL 12
standard.  TL 13 would have pretty much been out of their reach, perhaps
for hundreds of years.

>Everything you say makes sense, Harold. It certainly is possible that
>the RoM could have achieved TL 14 capabilities in a few fields for
>a number of years, but this was all lost as the Empire crumbled.

   I think you misunderstand what I'm implying--there wasn't time for TL
14 equipment to appear.  

   I would argue that even TL 13 was basically a novelty--on a par with
TL 16 in the Third Imperium.  While it is likely that there were few
worlds in the RoM had the capability to produce some TL 13 items, it in
*no way* should be implied that such worlds could produce even
experimental TL 14 equipment, in much the same way that the TL 16 worlds
in the Third Imperium were incapable of producing TL 17 experimental
equipment.  For example, I'll believe somebody saying that they found a
small cache of holographic storage crystals (TL 13 technology) dating
from the Rule of Man buried in some ruins on Kaggushus (a world near
Ershur), but if they also find an experimental meson communicator (TL 14
technology), I'd be very inclined to believe it was a fake.

>I don't, personally, have a big problem with throwing relic TL-14
>equipment into adventures, sparingly. It's just that authors should be
>careful that they don't accidentally re-write history or things like that.

   I have a *tremendous* problem with relic TL 14 equipment, since it
basically invalidates a fundamental fact of RoM history.  Really, saying
that there were a few TL 13 worlds is *non-canon* in and of itself,
since it assumes that, as in the Third Imperium, there were worlds that
were the exception to the rule on the high side of technology.  There
are absolutely no valid references that I've been made aware of (as in
sourcebook and page number) from the GDW era that say there was a TL 13
anything in the RoM, let alone TL 14.

Regards,

Harold

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 08:38:12 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: The MT task system was *FAR* from perfect...

>Why? There should always be "That one lucky shot". Of course a BD can
>be penetrated, there is no such thing as a perfect defence. Every
>Armor has it's weak spot and MT represents that. Such is life and
>such is MT.

Yes but a 1/36 chance is a bit too high methinks.


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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 06:33:41 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Pistols at 900 paces!

On Thu, 26 Jun 97 23:41:16 -0500, Eris Reddoch wrote:

> On 06/27/97 at 03:32 AM,  jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay) said:
> 
> >"Because the dice code for ranged combat tasks is dependent upon distance
> >rather than weapon type, it is theoretically possible for a character to
> >hit a target at 1500 meters with a pistol, though very unlikely."
>  
> Now, don't get me wrong I agree with the points you made in your post,
> but...
> 
> I read a magazine article several years ago about a fellow that really
> *could* hit a man sized target at 1 mile (~1600m) 3 out of 4 shots.  He
> used a hand built long barreled 44 revolver, firing from the side of hill
> across a valley at a target on the other side.  If I remember correctly, he
> sat down to fire, balancing the gun's barrel and sighting between his feet.

Oh yeah (sarcasm) and all Traveller players roleplay their characters
in combat this way :)

Was that a .44 Magnum revolver, or a .44 Winchester single-shot,
target-shooting pistol?  If the task can't be replicated by a Glock
23, Beretta 92F, SIG-Sauer 226, Walther PPK, or any of hundreds of
other pistols, the rules shouldn't allow it *except as a special case
for that particular weapon*.

I like 3G3's or EA's optional rule defining a weapon's maximum range
at either one or two range bands beyond its listed Range for aimed
shots.  I can read my T4 rulebook again!  :)

> I don't remember the article too well, it *was* over 20 years ago, and it
> only stuck with me at all because of the sheer improbability of such long
> range shots with a pistol.  It seemed impossible to me at the time, but
> well I *did* read it.  And no, it wasn't in The Star.  ;->

Hey!  We're discussing something other than a task system.  Feel's
weird...  :\

James W. Lindsay     Vancouver, British Columbia
  "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"

"Give me the strength to change the things I can,
    the grace to accept the things I cannot,
         and a great big bag of money."

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 08:50:22 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Rule of Man (ROM) TL

>This means, I think, that we can really only use TL to determine a few
>things, primarily starship jump capability, some weapons technology, and
>some transport technology. Other areas such as terraforming, geneering,
>cybernetics, etc are much more nebulously associated with any given TL.
>
>Bruce Johnson
>University of Arizona
>College of Pharmacy
>Information Technology Group

Global terraforming is not so much a technological thing as it is an
economic. We're working our asses off to create a runaway greenhouse world
right now which is on the scale of terraforming albeit in the wong
direction. If terraforming means huge space based mirrors etc I'd say Tl
8-9 is enough and then all you need is cash - LOTS OF IT!
As for this uplift stuff despite it being canon I totally ignore it as it
smells like Solomani propaganda and is not consistent with MY view of
Solomani (Military inclined, clever but aggressive and oppressive - kind of
like the US during the 50:s)


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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 08:57:58 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Battledress and heroism

>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.

A PC buying a battlesuit deserves what he gets ;)


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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 08:56:32 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Generic Task Descriptions

>>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).
>
>J, it looks good to me.  The GM can take this description and put it into
>the format required by a specific task system very easily. It makes tasks
>much easier to use across systems and with house rules.
>
>
>Eris

Eh, isn't this what's already there? Aren't task descriptions in T4 basically:
Hard,Dex,Vaccsuit?


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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 00:00:35 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rational

[Mostly to clean up.  This really doesn't cover anything that
hasn't been hashed over before.]
Thu, 26 Jun 1997 19:29:58 -0600, "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
>>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 what I said at all.  He has training and he is smart enough
to know where his training can take him.  Meanwhile the guy
with low intellegence tries things he never really got right
in training.

>Not everything is "intuitively obvious" or what's the purpose
>of training in the first place.

That's why you don't allow some rolls unless you have at
least some level of skill above 0.

>>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

Exactly, and that is one reason why some people find the whole idea
that someone with low stat and skill-4 should beat out a guy with
a higher stat to be wrong.

>Skill levels don't represent how much training you've
>*received*, they reflect how much ability you've *gained* from the
>training.

I see.  And where does this distinction come from?  And if so, why
do you get a skill every year, regardless of how bright you are?

What you are doint is trying to include the effects of stat
into skill, which supports the idea that talent _does_ make
a difference.

>>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"

There is no distinction.  GM's are allowed to _sometimes_ allow
rolls against skill-0 for thing that can be accomplished by
an untrained person.  In this case, heart surgery, wouldn't
be that case and so you wouldn't be allowed to roll.  No
problem.

>>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.

I'm not.  You are.  The difference between Stat 7 and Stat 4 isn't
what you can do.  It's how well you can do it.  The current rules
allow someone with Medical-1, regardless of whether his stat is 8
or 11, to try heart surgery.  If you have a problem with that then
you need rule that you need a minimum skill level to try it at
all.  If you don't, then I see no reason why the more talented
person shouldn't have a better chance.

>>[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)

It was gratuitous because you could have just refered to them
rather than listing every one out.

>>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'm sorry.  In Classic Traveller rolling against skill-0 is
explicitly mentioned as only being allowed at the GM's discression.
In any case.  I agree that certain task would require a minimum
of training.  I also find it obvious that people with equal
traiing are going to exhibit a huge range in how effective
that training is.

>> 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!

Shouting your points doesn't make them any more true.  If you
want to get hung up on semantic, replace "experience" with
"training".

>>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.

This is obvious.  Unfortunately this attitude leads to this sort
of automatic negation of new ideas for the game.  Most people would
say that the idea that other games have tried stat+skill and found
it to work means that it can work for Traveller too.

____________________________
Summers@Alum.MIT.edu

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1490
***********************************
