CT Only: Low Passage and You!

[Supplement Four]

Technically true, but a bit problematic in a few narrow areas. For example, if you assume the character generation rules represent the norm, then there are a heck of a lot more nobles and SEH holders than one would expect.

SEH is provided in extended character generation. Like the optional soft survival rule, that's a can of beans of its own.

Nobles, hmm...I'm not sure about that one. There are a ton of people in the Empire. I've always thought that generating Nobles in CT was "just about right", but I haven't put numbers to it.

As I recall, the great Han Solo, that fine exemplar of the adventurer sort, didn't have a wide array of noteworthy skills. Good pilot, pretty good with the streetwise bit, but his engineering skills were maybe adequate at best...

He did make a lot of "special modifications" to the Falcon himself.

...and his idea of gun combat was to send as much energy downrange as possible and hope something got hit. He mostly survived on wits.

Sounds like a strong CT character.

 

[aramis]

Technically true, but a bit problematic in a few narrow areas. For example, if you assume the character generation rules represent the norm, then there are a heck of a lot more nobles and SEH holders than one would expect.

It's more feasible that they represent the norm of those who actually travel between systems... which would be a tiny fraction of people.

 

[atpollard]

Skills, in CT, do not represent a character's total sum of training. Skills represent where that character excels.

I found it helpful to think of a skill-1 as comparable to a D&D Prestige Class ... It represents several years of specialized training and experience to gain all of the abilities typically associated with the normal activities of that profession.

 

[Supplement Four]

It's more feasible that they represent the norm of those who actually travel between systems... which would be a tiny fraction of people.

Excellent comment. So true.

I found it helpful to think of a skill-1 as comparable to a D&D Prestige Class ... It represents several years of specialized training and experience to gain all of the abilities typically associated with the normal activities of that profession.

Yes. It's easy to look at Skill-1 as minimal training. But, in CT, it's really not that at all. Although it probably is in other editions of Traveller.

CT is its own beast.

 

[BytePro]

...Which is a HUGE modifier. [a +1 DM] ...

Sorry, 5-17% is not typically considered 'HUGE' by anyone I know. <shrug>

Any DM is obviously more significant on a smaller range. This is why Basic CT didn't have tons of DMs.

This is why the system, as written, doesn't generate characters with high skill levels (or many skills). Again, CT character should mirror those shown in Supplement 1.
... <snip/rearrange>
Skills, in CT, do not represent a character's total sum of training. Skills represent where that character excells.

Agreed, at least with Basic CT chargen and RAW checks - we are in the same conceptual ballpark, sans the dramatic adjectives...

I'll have to disagree that a "+2 per skill level" is often used in CT. There are a handfull of situations only--not a big percentage of all the throws mentioned in the core Traveller rules.

Well, I'm compelled to disagree with your disagree-ing.

I count 22 explicitly defined per skill level DMs in the skill section of LBB1, with 7 explicitly stating +2 per level. (Only 9 dictate +1 per level and a 'handful' have +4 per level.) So, yeah, I'd call nearly a third 'often' - it seems an appropriate adjective. Perhaps you call that a TREMENDOUSLY HUGE percentage!

Note that Survival offers only a +2 DM for higher stats, and 7 of 15 mustering out stat bonuses are +2. Four of 10 positive Terrain DMs in combat are +2 while only 2 are +1. Also note the large proportion of weapons DMs that are greater than 1.

In a nutshell, a +1 DM is significant, but greater DMs are actually quite common. Outside combat, there are not a lot of DMs to apply to any given roll - and for odds to have real meaning for Players there needs to be an appreciable difference. Most folks don't do the math, but rather appreciate the results they experience. Increasing the odds only 1 in 7 or 8 really is hard for people to relate to - especially in a roleplaying game that doesn't have checks every step a PC takes.

Conversely, adding numerous compounded DMs can easily saturate rolls - leading to a very noticeable 'problem' of rolls being rather useless and anti-climatic.

MT changed this a bit, often allowing for higher targets. But, we're talking about CT here. (Well, actually, the UTP was originally developed for CT by DGP. It's just widely known as the MegaTraveller Task System, though that is a misnomer.)

The structured target system and the advanced chargen change the targets and the quantity of DMs in such a way that they compromise the elegance and range intents of Basic CT, IMO. Further, the UTP counting +1 per level in all situations changes their relative value and thus abstract meaning. Target values work hand in hand with the weighted DM values attributed to various skills - that's hard to match with a universal system, and more effort for the same net effect when it does match up appropriately.

Adding more skills (not just skill levels) raises a slightly different issue, IMO - and I think we agree it changes the 'meaning' of skills. Doubling and tripling the number of skills typically paints characters as being more extraordinarily or tasks being more dependent on having skill to have any appealing chance of success. (Doesn't inherently have to, but I think that is the common outcome.)

 

[Supplement Four]

Sorry, 5-17% is not typically considered 'HUGE' by anyone I know. <shrug>

It's quite huge, given 2-12 scale.

And, most games have a modifier present a 1-5% advantage. By your own admission, the +1 DM in CT provides a 5-17% advantage. That's 3 to 5 times bigger than most rpg.

I think by anybody's definition, that should be considered a huge difference. And, to elaborate, let's put that "3-5 times bigger" in different terms.

If you make $80,000 bucks a year, and I make $240,000 year, you wouldn't say that I make a much larger (huge) salary than you do? And, if Fred makes $400,000 bucks a year--that he has a substantial increase over both of us?

That's "3 to 5 times bigger" than your salary--the same percentage increase of the CT +1 DM against +1 DMs in most other rpgs.

Yes, I think "Huge" is the appropriate descriptive word.

I count 22 explicitly defined per skill level DMs in the skill section of LBB1, with 7 explicitly stating +2 per level.

I would use the Traveller Book, but, I guess LBB 1 will do.

Let's count.

Book 1 Throws That Prove +2 or more DM Per Skill Level.

Pg. 17 - Administration. +2 per level of skill.

Pg. 19 - Engineering. Normally, a +1 DM per skill level is use, but if relative value of Engineering skill is needed, use a +2 DM per skill level.

Pg. 19 - Forgery. -2 DM per level.

Pg. 19 - Forward Observer. +4 per level.

Pg. 21 - Ship's Boat. +2 per skill level above skill-1, when landing safely durig bad weather.

Pg. 22 - Vacc Suit. +4 per skill level to avoid dangerous situations.




Observations about this:

1. I must have missed the 7th one.

2. I think, to be fair in considering the core rules for the game, that you must consider either the Traveller Book or LBBs 1-3 as the core rules. And, if you do that, your percentage of times that more than a +1 per skill level (or +X if a condition is met, like the Ship's Boat +2 per level after Skill-1) is seen will diminish drastically. You're seeing 6/22 or 7/22 now only because you've taken 1/3 of the rules as your sample, and most of the +2 or more per skill level examples are in the skill definitions--which are all in Book 1.

I can think of one more, in Starship Combat, but that's about it, among all the skill throws mentioned in Books 1-3.

The real number that should be looked at is the number of task that include a +2 or more DM per skill level versus all task throws in the core game rules (LBBs 1-3). The percentage of task examples using +2 or more per skill level will be small--even smaller if you consider the entire game (all LBBs).


3. I will admit that there are a few more than I was originally thinking. It's been quite a while since I've played Classic Traveller (many years) or even cracked open a CT book. Still, I think my original statment is true--that +2 or more per level does not happen that often give all the example throws in the core rules (LBBs 1-3).

4. I'm glad we had this discussion, and that I did the above exercise, because it's taught me something about CT that I didn't know. What that is, is printed in the last line of the Engineering skill: In order to handle the relative value of experience, the DM may be assigned on the basis of +2 per level of expertise.

That, right there, tells us relative value of experience can be determined by comparing skills at +2 per level.

Judging by the uses of this method shown above, this is done only when relative expertise is extremely important to the success of a task: As when comparign the relative expertise of Admin or Enginnering ability; Detecting fake documents; Calling in fire support corrections; landing a Ship's Boat in bad weather; or avoiding a dangerous zero-g situation.

Whenever a person's expertise is extremely important to the success of a task, that's when the GM should assign a +2 or more DM per skill level for success.

I really should add this to the Rule 68A OP. All CT GM should know this.

Note that Survival offers only a +2 DM for higher stats, and 7 of 15 mustering out stat bonuses are +2.

This is not relevent. There are lots of +2 DM if exceptional stat is associated with the character. Our arugment is about +2 DM per skill level or more.

 

[McPerth]

IDK where to put this one :

Zero-G operations: +2 per Vacc Suit skill level (or Battledress, as can be used as Vacc Suit), +4 per Zero-G skill.

 

[BytePro]

That's 3 to 5 times bigger than most rpg.

Been specifically addressing your explicitly stated concept that +1 is 'HUGE' on the ON THE 2D6 SCALE. Hopefully you begin to understand why I have bothered trying to correct the adjective ...

Let's count. ...

Already did. Suggest not relying on memory and assumptions, but keep researching and thinking about the problem... I'm sure you'll get it!

3. I will admit that there are a few more than I was originally thinking. ... Still, I think my original statment is true--that +2 or more per level does not happen that often give all the example throws in the core rules (LBBs 1-3).

Well, you almost got it... if you'll put away assumptions and re-read, you will!

[That's not meant in a critical way - quite the contrary, if I thought you were incapable or too belligerent to 'get it', I wouldn't bother. We all make assumptions and get entrenched in them! I made sure to go page by page twice just to make sure my own assumptions and memory weren't betraying me!]

4. I'm glad we had this discussion, and that I did the above exercise, because it's taught me something about CT that I didn't know. What that is, is printed in the last line of the Engineering skill: In order to handle the relative value of experience, the DM may be assigned on the basis of +2 per level of expertise.
...
Whenever a person's expertise is extremely important to the success of a task, that's when the GM should assign a +2 or more DM per skill level for success.

I really should add this to the Rule 68A OP. All CT GM should know this.

I am very glad my efforts are showing some merit and helped you realize what I have long considered a very, very important, but easily missed, concept on how 2D6 is used in the unstructured CT mechanics.

I like equations and codifying things (I'm very good with math and a very experienced programmer/analyst). But attempting to pigeonhole checks begins to approach AI to truly work as well as the 'simplistic' unstructured original CT method...

This is not relevent. There are lots of +2 DM if exceptional stat is associated with the character. Our arugment is about +2 DM per skill level or more.

+2 is a much more significant impact on odds than +1, and hence it is used not just on skill checks (about 1 in 3), but through-out the mechanics.

Look at the big picture. We known 2D6 provides very small range and discrete, but varying, results based on modifiers. Its generally not very useful in 'simulating' reality above a high level of abstraction. Using abstraction well requires intelligence - number crunching machines just plain don't 'understand' abstract and nice neat formulaic approaches rarely represents it well. So, its critical to understand the relative importance of different DMs - and when not to use checks and how to adjust them. I don't believe any structured method can make this any easier - to do as well.

[Note I am not being absolute here, and also, I love formulas and much prefer them for design sequences...]

BTW: I prefer friendly 'Discussion' to 'Argument' and hope that is how you perceive this. I quite enjoy your posts!

 

[Supplement Four]

BTW: I prefer friendly 'Discussion' to 'Argument' and hope that is how you perceive this. I quite enjoy your posts!

As I yours. When I used the term "argument", I meant it by the scholarly definition. Not an argument where two people are pissed at each other, but where one writes a document (an argument) to support his point of view.

There is absolutely zero ill-will here.

As far as that goes, I'm not sold on your point of view, but I'll consider it further. Sure, there are a lot of +2 modifiers that kick in at X stat, but that's usually when a character has a superior stat.

As for the +2 per skill level (or +4 or whatever), I've always liked the method, and I think that other versions of Traveller are doing themselves a disservice by codifying skills as having a flat +1 per skill level no matter what. But, I would still argue that "+2 per skill level" occurs in tasks in the game only a handfull of times compared to tasks where skill levels are represented on a 1:1 basis or where a single DM is given per X skill.

 

[BytePro]

There is absolutely zero ill-will here.

Excellent - and mutual!

As far as that goes, I'm not sold on your point of view, but I'll consider it further.

Heh, my POV is often twisted and convoluted - I'm not always sold on it either!

...I think that other versions of Traveller are doing themselves a disservice by codifying skills as having a flat +1 per skill level no matter what.

Like minds.

But, I would still argue that "+2 per skill level" occurs in tasks in the game only a handfull of times compared to tasks where skill levels are represented on a 1:1 basis or where a single DM is given per X skill.

I was referencing rule occurrences and the design rationale behind >+1 DMs.

As both a Ref and a Player I want certain skills checks (rationally and 'emotionally') to really 'mean' something in practice. This means the odds need to change enough that I notice the impact within a short number of throws (especially with no explicit qualifier on success/failure attached to the numbers). This naturally relates to the occurrence of these types of throws - if they occurred frequently and with little impact, then it wouldn't be as useful.

If you look just at the 'by the book' checks - Admin, Engineering, Forgery, Ship's Boat, Vacc Suit - it depends on the nature of the game what the occurrence percentage is going to be. For me, heavier weighted skill DMs pop up in every game and is an important tool in my Referee Bag-o-Tricks. Even by the RAW, nearly 1/3 of all skill checks mentioned in LBBs1-3 leave DMs explicitly or implicitly up to the Ref without suggestions.

Sure, 2D6 has a very small range of outcomes, but suspect documenting the permutations that can occur with varying DMs, target values and rule mechanisms are used would probably take at least several pages to illustrate and a dozen pages to document in any attempt to be fairly complete.

In CT, making up skill checks is an art.

 

[Supplement Four]

As both a Ref and a Player I want certain skills checks (rationally and 'emotionally') to really 'mean' something in practice. This means the odds need to change enough that I notice the impact...

Yes, and a person's expertise isn't applied equally to all types of throws. That's the brilliance of CT's customizable task system.

When jumping from ship to ship in zero-G, where, if you fail, you go spinning out into space, it's damned important to know your equipment and how to use it. +4 DM per Vacc Suit skill level.

But, if you're wanting to operate the sight sensors inside the helmet of a suit of BattleDress, then any value of Vacc Suit skill will net you a single +1 DM on your sensors throw.

This simple variance in the value of a skill level is one of the reasons I think Classic Traveller is superior to all other Traveller editions.

In CT, making up skill checks is an art.

Agreed. And, not all CT GM's "get it", or are good at it.

I can see why some prefer codified rules with hard tasks systems, like MT, MGT, or, really, any other Traveller edition. It's consistent, even for mediocre GMs.

But, if you put a good, creative GM in charge of a Classic Traveller game...there's nothing like.

Games are amazing.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

IMTU: Personally, I like to generate characters using the Advanced Chargen systems so they have lots of background and skills and skill levels. Then I cut all skills back to a cap of no skill higher than the number of terms. Then I trim the total number of skill levels back to 2 skill levels per term with many of the skills converted to skill-0. The end result is some player selection of skills to shape his character, few really high skill levels, a character with no more skills than a LBB1-3 retired Scout and a list of Skill-0 that are based upon the character's history and actual assignments and experiences.

Wow, this is a really good way to handle things, though it leaves me unable to "play" chargen on my own. (Mainly, it being a house rule prevents my creation of 'generic' characters to pull out at a moment's notice.) If you don't mind, I would like to try and incorporate this into my homebrew chargen.

If that was my discount on a purchase, I certainly wouldn't call that huge.

Well, it would be to a lot of people! As a matter of fact, the waitress thought it was a good enough tip last weekend that she wrote it in for me on my credit card receipt. (Yes, the waitress not only suggested a tip amount of 17-18% on the check when it came, but had actually pre-written it on my credit card slip and added the total when it returned to the table. I scratched it out and wrote my own total.)

I'm enjoying the by-play, btw.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

In CT, making up skill checks is an art.

Which is something I hadn't really considered before. More good stuff to ponder.

 

[SpaceBadger]

Yes, and a person's expertise isn't applied equally to all types of throws. That's the brilliance of CT's customizable task system.

When jumping from ship to ship in zero-G, where, if you fail, you go spinning out into space, it's damned important to know your equipment and how to use it. +4 DM per Vacc Suit skill level.

But, if you're wanting to operate the sight sensors inside the helmet of a suit of BattleDress, then any value of Vacc Suit skill will net you a single +1 DM on your sensors throw.

This simple variance in the value of a skill level is one of the reasons I think Classic Traveller is superior to all other Traveller editions.

Agreed. This is somewhat the effect I was going for in my homebrew Fudge Traveller, but in practice it makes many skill checks almost GM fiat - I have had to write down some of my calculations to try for improved consistency, which ends up eventually losing the freeform ideal.

When jumping from ship to ship in zero-G, where, if you fail, you go spinning out into space, it's damned important to know your equipment and how to use it. +4 DM per Vacc Suit skill level.

The problem with a DM like this is setting the difficulty so that a noob has a chance of success, and someone with skill-1 has a good chance of success, but someone with skill-2 or 3 doesn't just automatically succeed. Do you use some form of autofail? Even then, some consideration for skill needs to be made, because a failure by a noob or even a skill-1 might be spinning off into space, but someone with skill-3 is not going to do that even on a failure - at least not 1 out of 36 tries, which is what most autofails would be.

 

[atpollard]

Wow, this is a really good way to handle things, though it leaves me unable to "play" chargen on my own. (Mainly, it being a house rule prevents my creation of 'generic' characters to pull out at a moment's notice.) If you don't mind, I would like to try and incorporate this into my homebrew chargen.

Thanks and enjoy.
I tend to join play-by-post games when I have time to play, and I have found that too many players have statistically defying luck that warrants buying a lottery ticket. While ultimately neither character stats nor skills matter all that much when it comes to playing, interacting and having fun, I get tired of feeling like Peewee Herman traveling with Rambo and Laura Croft.

So for me, any system that generates a good back story is what I really want.

 

[BytePro]

Which is something I hadn't really considered before.

I hadn't really either, till enjoying MgT for several years, but not quite capturing the same feeling.

Agreed. And, not all CT GM's "get it", or are good at it.

Indeed!

Yeah, and though I love CT and am a fan of its terseness, I do think the rules could have done a better job addressing the 'art' of its mechanics. I know there are plenty of otherwise great Referees out there who just won't get it as published.

Reminds me of a 'teacher' whose approach to teaching Calculus II was 'remember the fo'm, remember the fo'mat'... useful for passing his tests and little more.

Structured mechanics and lists of task checks at least give something to work from all the time - and MgTs helped me improve, and better appreciate, my CT games. I'm just glad CT's mechanics clicked for me and do try to share that - though I'm generally hopeless at explaining things...

Well, it would be to a lot of people! As a matter of fact, the waitress thought it was a good enough tip last weekend that she wrote it in for me on my credit card receipt. (Yes, the waitress not only suggested a tip amount of 17-18% on the check when it came, but had actually pre-written it on my credit card slip and added the total when it returned to the table. I scratched it out and wrote my own total.)

15% is standard in my neck of the woods - anything less is generally considered an indication of inferior service. I can't see most waitstaff bragging about a 17-18% tip. Once gave a $50 tip on a $40 meal - to a waiter for pretty much insisting I try a different course (and excellent service to boot)! I never saw him again, but sure got visible preferential treatment on future visits.

My friends and family were always appalled at my large tips (25-35% being my norm) - however most came to realize how much I got back in preferential treatment - from free food (probably exceeding all my tips, actually) and excellent service, to being seated even in the busiest of times. People talk and people remember. Heck one national chain diner franchise for years would serve me a meal previously removed from the menu. The place changed owners several times and I had no idea, till one day a manager came to apologize for the delay, that they had to send folks to local stores to find the all beef hotdog to go with the meal - they hadn't served hot dogs in years to anyone else! We're talking a sub-$10 meal.

 

[BytePro]

..., I get tired of feeling like Peewee Herman traveling with Rambo and Laura Croft.

:rofl: LMAO - Thanks for that!

 

[Supplement Four]

I have had to write down some of my calculations to try for improved consistency, which ends up eventually losing the freeform ideal.

Not me. I just go with my gut, and many times, the throws I cite are not consistent.

But, life is like that.

A character comes up to a stuck hatch. I say it takes a 2D for STR or less throw to shove it open.

Another time, a different party member encounters another stuck hatch,and I say, "Roll 3D for STR or less to force it open."

Then, he brings up that he remembers me calling for a 2D for STR or less in the same situation.

I say, "Different door. Different day. Who's to say that this one isn't more tightly sealed?"

Life.

The problem with a DM like this is setting the difficulty so that a noob has a chance of success, and someone with skill-1 has a good chance of success, but someone with skill-2 or 3 doesn't just automatically succeed.

That's exactly the point, though. In that situation, the noob is a character with no Vacc Suit skill. He's got to throw a 10+ to make the check. Chances are he'll fail.

But, the GM has determined that this is hard for noobs but not so hard for those with specialized training. That's a situation where you use the +4 DM.

Vacc Suit-1 needs a 6+, and Vacc Suit-2+ means the check is automatic.

When thinking about this, consider how many CT characters don't have Vacc Suit skill. Look through Supplement 1 and count them. Plenty of people shouldn't wear Vacc Suits and go into dangerous situations. But, those that are trained for the situation, the job isn't that hard.

Do you use some form of autofail?

Sometimes, yes. Not all the time. Not most of the time. This is Classic Traveller. Anything goes. I gauge each individual situation on its own merits.

But, remember, that most CT characters only have a few skills. Many task throws they make will be made with no skill at all.

Typically, there should be no autofail. But, in extreme circumstances, or when the story warrants, I'll throw one in.

For example, I wouldn't make a throw with an autofail for a Communications throw. But, if the communicator was damaged, and I think there's a chance that the comm unit will fail, then, yeah, why not?

Even then, some consideration for skill needs to be made, because a failure by a noob or even a skill-1 might be spinning off into space, but someone with skill-3 is not going to do that even on a failure - at least not 1 out of 36 tries, which is what most autofails would be.

Two comments here: First, that throw is from the CT book. 10+ throw, where there is a +4 DM per Vacc Suit skill. I didn't make it up.

Second, remember that Skill-1 is far from being a noob. It's an area of excellence for the character. He's a trained professional, checked out on the equipment or tested and proven in the field.

Skill-1 is the most common skill. If you go see a professional, chances are, he's got Skill-1.

Skill-1 is devalued in other versions of Traveller, like what you are thinking, but not in CT.

A noob is really a character with no skill at all. A person with bare minimum, introductory training is Skill-0. A trained professional is Skill-1.

 

[rancke]

A noob is really a character with no skill at all. A person with bare minimum, introductory training is Skill-0. A trained professional is Skill-1.

An interesting notion. Without getting into the question of whether or not that sort of character works for me, I must say that the CT rules utterly failed to convey that information to me. Indeed, based on the single example that provided information about skill equivalency (Medic-3 is needed to qualify for the title of doctor), I've always thought 0 was Quickie Course, 1 was amateur/trainee, 2 was "journeyman" and 3 was professional standard.


Hans

 

[Supplement Four]

Yeah, and though I love CT and am a fan of its terseness, I do think the rules could have done a better job addressing the 'art' of its mechanics.

For many years, I've considered putting together a new LBB, either the next Supplement or Book in the series. I'm thinking of making it look exactly like the original LBBs, cover and all, then posting it for free download as a fan supplement.

In it, I wanted to have chapters that cover certain sections of Classic Traveller that I think have been glossed over. A chapter on dicing and throws would be a big part of the book. Instead of suggesting a particular method of creating throws--I don't want to put a hard task system into CT--I'd give the GM ideas on how to dice situations and make up throws.

I envision the chapter to be akin to MWM's advice on creating throws mentioned in the Traveller Adventure (I believe this is the most detailed CT information on the subject), but I'd go into much more detail and use example tasks that are already in the rule books.

In effect, it would be a throw tool box for GMs, with the intention of helping the GM use the right tool for the job--and help him create sensible task throws on the spot during a game.

I'd discuss the impact of stats and the value of skills and give several types of dicing examples.

I'd have other chapters discussing other areas of the game that I think need illumination. CT sensors come to mind--CT takes the view that it's hard to hide in space, and it should be damned near automatic to detect other vessels, unless they've got something to hide behind (a moon, gravitational interference). This should be information that a GM just gives the players--no roll typically needed, execpt in extreme situations.

I'd have a chapter on taking the basic chargen tables and customizing careers for a specific world, tech level, or campaign. I'd also talk about customizing equipment and weapons. Not all rifles should have the exact same stats as those in the book. Tweaking equipment, with pro and con modifiers, can add a lot to a game.

You get the idea. I'd want to create a book full of this type of stuff. Maybe I'll get around to doing it one day.

I've yet to come up with a neat "Traveller-ish" name for the book, though. Striker. Mercenary. Merchant Prince. Those are all cool names. I'm at a loss to figure something that would "fit" this book.

Book X - Ship's Locker doesn't seem to fit as well as I'd like it.

I need something cool and Traveller-ish, but also something that well describes the grab-bag rule discussion that will fill the book.

Structured mechanics and lists of task checks at least give something to work from all the time - and MgTs helped me improve, and better appreciate, my CT games.

Interesting that you say that. It was during/right after I completed work on the UGM that I realized that structured task systems sucked some of the life out of CT. I went on to write Rule 68A, and have ever since appreciated Classic Traveller as the best version of the game ever published.

15% is standard in my neck of the woods - anything less is generally considered an indication of inferior service.

Well, I think a +3 DM in a d20 can be considered quite large.

Our CT +1 DM provides the same amount of edge to success.

I get tired of feeling like Peewee Herman traveling with Rambo and Laura Croft.

Just stay away from the public restrooms, will ya?