I didn't mean to start a major discussion on the virtues or flaws of the
T:2000 system. It looks like GDW is pretty firmly wedded to the concept
at this point, and any argument sent back in their direction will simply
be ignored. They're within their rights, of course, however crazy we
happen to think them...
christofer bertani [email removed] writes in Msg 4373:
> Following Rob Dean's lead, I present a chart showing skill levels for
> MegaTraveller. Note that many, if not most, skills in MT allow an addi-
> tional DM based off some attribute.
(Table deleted for brevity)
> This is all based off a Routine Task (7+), to compare with the Twilight
> 2000 Routine Tasks (base skill roll) that Rob Dean posted.
In fact, due to the attribute or secondary skill modifiers that Chris
mentions, the situation in T:2000 is even worse. A typical character
will pick up an additional +1 or +2 on most skill uses, which translates
to another level or two of T:2000 skill.
> It appears that a typical Traveller character has a skill in T:2000
> about 6 higher than her Traveller skill level. A level 1 skill in
> Traveller is worth about a level 7 skill in T:2000. This was one of the
> things I liked so much about Traveller; skill-1 meant something. You
> didn't have to have a level 5 skill just to have an even chance at
> succeeding!
As far as I am concerned, even skill level-0 is useful as currently
defined in MegaTraveller. I seem to recall a note somewhere in T:2000
that suggested that skill rolls could be dispensed with in many situa-
tions where the resolution was not in doubt. If I am remembering that
correctly, I think it's the wrong way to go, since you now have the
possibility of arguments over whether or not a situation is sufficiently
important or challenging or whatever to justify a skill roll. Give me
the system where simple tasks have a virtually automatic roll any day...
Brian [email removed] writes in Msg 4372
> After reading the criticisms of the Twilight:2000 2nd Ed system as a
> source for a Traveller re-do, I want to offer what I imagine will end up
> as a defense of the T:2000 system. But, I'm not going to suggest that
> it's the best starting point for another Traveller iteration, simply
> that T:2000 2nd Ed has some real virtues. I would consider the purchase
> of a sci-fi game that builds on them, even as I realize how remote a
> prospect that's likely to be.
Not too remote at all, I'd think. They look pretty serious about this.
> I'm about to toss around a lot of opinions, but I don't think that anyone
> else's opinions on this subject are wrong.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course...
> T:2000 2nd Ed contains a kernel of a game system that is realistic, quick,
> and easy to play, in short it's the most viable GDW system we've tried.
> Specifically, here's what I find so successful:
> - - Task resolution. The D10-based system... is easy to use, and
> realistic enough for play.
There is really nothing inherently wrong with this system as far as I am
concerned. My only problem with it is that, given the current rate of
skill acquisition in starting cahracters shown in the T:2000 rules, most
characters would start out vastly lesws capable than their current
Traveller counterparts. If the system was wedded to a character genera-
tion system where is was fairly easy to pick up three or four or five
skills at levels of 6+, I'd be content. (Well, contenter...)
> Note that T:2000 2nd Ed gives several complementing rules for skill
> improvement. So, characters that start out with mediocre skills or
> initiative will improve them. Characters with really low skills im-
> prove at a faster rate. Our experience reveals that it works!
If they survive. (-: Poor Demo-1 Joe Smith will probably not live to
set his second routine charge when their is a 54% chance of a catas-
trophic failure on his first try at skill level 1. (-:
> - - Combat. With its 6-phase turn sequence and initiative system...
> does a super job of modeling the salient factors in a combat....
Maybe so. My personal preference is for combat to be a strategy of
_last_ resort, and most of my games go for long stretches without in-
volving any fighting. Thus, I'm not fussy about the combat rules, and I
actually prefer the more abstract systems that Traveller has used better
than the more detailed ones. (How many combat systems have there been,
Metlay? Five or six...?)
> The "truths" in the 2nd Ed apply whether the hand holds a machete or
> plasma gun. On the other hand, (sorry) there's a lot from the 2nd Ed
> rulebook that should be thrown out the window. Role-playing games are
> like a good Chili recipe: take what you like, leave out what you don't,
> add the special ingredients, and write it down so you can make it again.
> I've NEVER seen a game I'd accept in every detail, I never will. What
> saves T:2000 2nd Ed is that it has a skeleton of rules that's well worth
> being fixed.
I'm just curious as to what you thought should be thrown out. The rules
you have cited as liking are the majority of rules in they game, aren't
they? Of course, they'll only be a small fraction of the rules needed
for TNE, byt the time you figure ships, ship combat, trade, planet
generation, and so forth into it.
> - allow players latitude in character generation...it's their charac-
> ter, we're all adults, as ref who am I to mess with that?
Doesn't T:2000/2 already allow a good bit of latitude? I thought that
you could enter just about any career without having to roll for surviv-
al or admission or skill acquisition. It's the next loosest thing to
just picking the skills that I've seen.
Rob Dean
(No responses will be seen from or by me until next week. I'll be busy
until Tuesday by my current schedule.)