TRAVELLER Digest 571

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: TRAVELLER digest 569 by jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN)
  2) FF&S Lite by b.borich@genie.com
  3) Way Stations by Simon.Harding@vuw.ac.nz
  4) Re: The rules by grimscal@dove.mtx.net.au
  5) Re: Rating Technology in Game Systems by Antti Lahtinen <al76188@cs.tut.fi>
  6) Where is Mark Miller ??? by simonm@ramhb.co.nz
  7) Re: Way Stations by "David E. Brooks Jr" <dbj@MPGN.COM>
  8) Re: TRAVELLER digest 570 by Julian Love <julian.love@st-johns.oxford.ac.uk>
  9) Campaign Cartographer by Kevin Combs <kevin013@access.digex.net>
 10) 1. Vargr, 2. TNE vs CT/MT by fredm@datasync.com (Fred May)
 11) Technology and Design by Steve Charlton/Avalon Software Inc
 12) question about mt2 by "V.A.G." <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
 13) Re: Campaign Cartographer by "David J. Golden" <goldendj@csn.net>
 14) New timeline?  No way! by Christopher_Griffen_at_DMC-SJ3@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
 15) ad2300] 2300 Resource list by Brian Hoover <hoover@cougar.multiline.com.au>
 16) Uh...huh. by Christopher_Griffen_at_DMC-SJ3@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
 17) Re: Uh...huh. by Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 96 20:38:00 -0500
From: jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN)
To: TRAVELLER@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 569
Message-ID: <8B9B4D6.0100067EFB.uuout@execnet.com>


 Lewis Roberts writes...

 ::>Subject: Dragons of Nutema

T::>Hi,
 ::>A few weeks ago, someone wrote up a RICE paper on Nutema,
 ::>(Sorry I forgot your name)

 That was me.

 ::>I liked it, but I was wondering were there any stats for the dragons.

 No, I never worked up any sort of stats for the dragons.  Take the
 little bit of information about them that's there, and dilute
 liberally with "supercow" from H. Beam Piper's "Lone Star Planet"
 (pub. as "Planet for Texans" in some magazines and areas).  Then,
 draw your own conclusions.

==========================================================================
Jeff Zeitlin                                      jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com
---
 þ OLXWin 1.00a þ Chief Archivist, Regency Institute for Cultural Education

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 96 01:47:00 UTC 0000
From: b.borich@genie.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: FF&S Lite
Message-ID: <199601290221.AA010862069@relay1.geis.com>

    <FF&S Lite> Sounds like the MT lite project.......
    Both could have used example designs......

    It would be nice to see though and an easier project to do with FF&S
I think than with the MT design rules. Heck, some people have already
started something vaguely along these lines. It just needs to be expanded.

    It should be able to handle ships up to 1000-2000 tons.
    Plug in drives (with necessary fuel)
    Plug in fuel plant (with fuel)
    Plug in standard sensor package.
    Plug in standard weapons.
    etc...

    Of course these designs won't necessarily be as efficient as specialty
construction ships, but that's the trade-off you get for off the shelf parts
fitted together.

    And hopefully different design considerations for the different races too.
Which to my mind was part of the reason for a book like FF&S.

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 17:16:21 +1300
From: Simon.Harding@vuw.ac.nz
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Way Stations
Message-ID: <199601290416.RAA08513@rata.vuw.ac.nz>

Since j-torps have currently been under discussion, I thought I would raise
one of my pet subjects - way stations.
Empty space has just been left as empty space in the Traveller universe.
There seems to me to be no reason why the Imperium or whoever could not
place man-made way stations aparently empty space. A jump 4 gap between two
worlds could be made manageable by jump 2 ships if a way-station were placed
between. I have to say that in my Trav universe such way-stations exist.
Some are secret and available to Imperium ships. Others are even more secret
and are used as locations for research. None of these man-made way-stations
are available on commercial available charts so their location still appears
as empty space.
No doubt someone lurking out there will let me know if such way-stations
exist already in the wealth of Trav published material.


Simon Harding

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 17:34:00 +0000
From: grimscal@dove.mtx.net.au
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: The rules
Message-ID: <199601290703.RAA18158@dove.mtx.net.au>

>         I think the biggest problem was not with the rules, but the setting.
> Many people reacted violently to the whole Virus setting, and since they
> didn't like the setting decided they didn't like the rules ... hence never
> got going. Which is why I think it critically important that any new rules
> be as divorced from a specific setting as the original Classic Traveller
> rules were.
>
Granted a lot of people did not like the virus. However in order to
devorce the back ground from the rules there would have to be more
then one background to choose from. it is possible but resorce
hungry. Games like rolemaster have this with different sorce books
for different backgrounds.

Althoe now that I think about it, This seems to be a good Idea for
this game. That way more people could be happy with there preferred
background and not tied to just one.

After a time one would likly come out on top but the choices would
still be there. Making the modules nonspesific would be hard, but it
has been don in battletech. One module could be used with all of the
rule sets from Roleplaying to strategic gaming.



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

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 14:52:51 +0200
From: Antti Lahtinen <al76188@cs.tut.fi>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Rating Technology in Game Systems
Message-ID: <199601291252.OAA25522@cs.tut.fi>

> The single biggest problem that faces Traveller, increasingly
> from the time of MTrav, is its mania with rating things in
> *real world* terms.

I have to disagree with this. I think that the ability
to rate things in Real World(tm) terms is one of the
best things in Traveller.

> This should apply for *all* vehicles. As for other equipment,
> yes, even guns! there should be *no* design sequence per se,
> perhaps some rules for having a weapon *customized*, but no
> more.

Design rules are the only way to make plausible
limitations to the capabilities of high-tech vehicles
and weapons.

> the G-11 and Caseless ammo weapons, still not in production

I would be highly surprised if the caseless .223 Uzel
bolt-action rifle would prove to be nonexistent of "not
in production", and vanish from gun cabinet.

> Nope, just give us some advanced weapon designs for each TL
> and GMs will be happy enough to create new weapons based on
> what "seems reasonable" compared to existing designs.

The "seems reasonable" (or "MuTu method") can easily
lead to glaring reality problems. I ran into this
problem when I took part in weapon damage research
project in 1992-93, when I was stationed in Finnish
Defense Forces medical school in Lahti. The project is
called "Small high-velocity projectiles effect on
living tissue", and it examines the relations between
projectile properties and caused tissue damage. Though
this project is not unique (there were similar projects
in Sweden, US and Russia), it uses very large database
and tissue damage is evaluated by pathologist. In some
popular weapon damage studies, the damage was evaluated
by "seems reasonable" method, and these studies are
considered to have only limited scientific value.

In some other roleplaying games, the weapon damage
values appear to be generated by "shake the numbers out
from your sleeve" method, and touch the surface of
reality only by accident. The same thing can happen
when a GM, with no knowledge of real weapon design,
generates new weapons for his games.

"This is tachyon interference pistol. It has ROF 50,
DV 25, PEN 1/500, no recoil, unlimited range, and fires
10000 shots when powered by two AAA cells."
"How it works? Well, I don't have the slightest idea..."

> Most players and GMs (as a number of people have noted) have
> neither the time nor the desire to go through the design
> rules as they exist, anyway.

Yes. The current FFS rules are just a framework, upon
which one can build more. Some parts of design rules
are oversimplified (vehicle speed formula), too complex
(hull size table can be expressed as single formula),
or unclear (warhead mass table is nonlinear).


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

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 96 02:08 NZDT
From: simonm@ramhb.co.nz
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Where is Mark Miller ???
Message-ID: <m0tgtK5-0002k9C@mail.ramhb.co.nz>

Just wondering if anyone knows an alternate way to contact Mark Miller other
than via the FarFuture@AOL.com address. I've been emailing that address for
nearly two weeks with no reply. Loren W. isn't replying to mail either. Anyone
know what gives ?

Please reply to Simon J Mahony : simonm@ramhb.co.nz.   Thanks.

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 09:29:43 -0500 (EST)
From: "David E. Brooks Jr" <dbj@MPGN.COM>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Way Stations
Message-ID: <Pine.ULT.3.91.960129092216.20919A-100000@Central.KeyWest.MPGN.COM>

On Sun, 28 Jan 1996 Simon.Harding@vuw.ac.nz wrote:

> Since j-torps have currently been under discussion, I thought I would raise
> one of my pet subjects - way stations.
> Empty space has just been left as empty space in the Traveller universe.
> There seems to me to be no reason why the Imperium or whoever could not
> place man-made way stations aparently empty space. A jump 4 gap between two
> worlds could be made manageable by jump 2 ships if a way-station were placed
> between. I have to say that in my Trav universe such way-stations exist.
> Some are secret and available to Imperium ships. Others are even more secret
> and are used as locations for research. None of these man-made way-stations
> are available on commercial available charts so their location still appears
> as empty space.
> No doubt someone lurking out there will let me know if such way-stations
> exist already in the wealth of Trav published material.
>
>
> Simon Harding

They do to an extent.  In the Regency Sourcebook they describe
Callibration Points--Artifically created stations in deep space for
Military use.  In this case, they are used as alternate paths across
the Great Rift and require something like J5 or J6 ships to even reach
them.

As for CPs/Way Points inside settled space, they could certainly
exist, but the need would have to be great.  They take considerable
time to construct and would be expensive to maintain--It would
probably be cheaper to build a small fleet of high-jump capable ships.

-- Dave

--
David E. Brooks Jr / dbj@MPGN.COM | GCS/O d? H+(-) s:+ g+ a w++(--) v
Tantalus Incorporated             | C++ UU++++$ UO P+>+++ L+ E N+ W+>+++
Key West, FL                      | M- V- po Y+ t+(++) !5 !j R+(++)>+++ G'
+1 305 293 8100 x15               | tv- b+>++ D B- e u+ h--- f+ r+++ n y?


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

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 15:16:22 +0000 (GMT)
From: Julian Love <julian.love@st-johns.oxford.ac.uk>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 570
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.960129150030.15E-100000@sable.ox.ac.uk>

Hi all -

Just adding to the TNE/MT/CT and FFS debate -

Basically, TNE is the best rules set of the three (and YES I have used
them all). It is the only one that is comprehensive and developed enough.
The character generation is fine, combat rules are fine, the task system
works well etc, etc.

I do agree that the timeline used to reach the setting that was used was
rediculous, and it was that IMHO that is the root of most of the problems
anti-TNE types have with it. MM's proposal of having a universal rules
set with several different backround is perfect, it keeps everyone happy.

Quite why anyone wants to go back to MT I don't know (and as for CT, are
you MAD?). TNE is by far the most complete rules set of the three. I
believe that the majority of debate concerns the setting, which with MM's
plans is no longer a problem.

Now, as for FFS. Personally I think it is bloody good. OK, it has a few
problems with it and needs a few things tweaked, but the principle is
amazing. As was very well argued by someone (sorry, I forget who), don't
not publish an FFS style book just because some people find it too
complicated or cannot spare the time to use it fully. I you don't want
all that detail, DON'T USE IT! Just look at the final stats (range,
damage, pen or speed, duration, and weapons etc, etc). Some people LIKE
the detail.

If you are just need a ship that the players are taking a passage on, you
don't need to design it with FFS anyway - all you need to know is size,
jump, maneuvre, staterooms, and weapons. Who cares what it's weight is
to the nearest metric ton? The same for weapons. If all you want is the
final stats, that all you need to use. Other people like the detail, and
anyway, the detail (ME etc) is only used IN ORDER TO find out the final
stats. They are only a means to an end.

Personally, if any new Traveller rules set does not contain a design
sequence as detailed as that in FFS, then I shall stick with TNE and just
buy a few of the new background supplements.

So there - all those who don't like FFS, don't bloody well use it, and
don't dictate to those who do like it what they should or should not use.

Jules

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 11:25:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Kevin Combs <kevin013@access.digex.net>
To: xboat@MPGN.COM, traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Campaign Cartographer
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960129111847.18518A-100000@access1.digex.net>

I recently bought a copy of Profantasy's Campaign Cartographer.  My plan
is to use it for producing World Maps, ship designs, and the like for
Traveller.  Has anyone used CC for Traveller?  Any hints/templates/advice
would be helpful.

Kevin


* Kevin Combs                    * "We should have freed the      *
* Columbia, MD                   *  slaves, then fired on         *
                                 *  Fort Sumter."                 *
                                 * General James Longstreet       *


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

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 11:53:24 -0600
From: fredm@datasync.com (Fred May)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: 1. Vargr, 2. TNE vs CT/MT
Message-ID: <199601291753.LAA02215@osh1.datasync.com>

Hello all.  I'm new to the list, so forgive me if I repeat anything or cover
well troden ground.

1.  I have a question for the more experienced of Travellers.  I'm about to
begin a campaign that contains a Vargr NPC.  The grandparents of this Vargr,
along with a couple other Vargr families, were stranded during the wars that
followed the rebellion(CT/MT traditionalist forgive).  This Vargr has been
raised in a human society.  My question is this, would it be possible for
this Vargr to be more "Domesticated" than "Wild"?  I mean most Vargr display
a tendency to stay in Packs with a constant CHR "battle" over who the leader
will be, much like the wild canines they descend from.  However, a Vargr
that was raised in a post-imperial human culture, IMO, would exhibit more of
the tendencies of a domesticated canine(ie, loyalty).  The Vargr in this
campaign (as I have it planned thus far) is a loyal companion to the leader
of the PC group.  It would detract from the campaign to constantly worry
about CHR issues.  Is this possible, or is the CHR "battle" of the Vargr a
instinctive response?

2. I haven't had the benefit of experiencing CT; however, I did play MT for
a short period of time(thanks Jim, Bobby, & Bret if you're listening).  I
enjoy TNE now though.  I understand some of the gripes about TNE, but I
still like it.  Much of the original TNE work seems to be "tongue-in-cheek"
and a big joke. (RCES - "arses",  Ithklur, Virus, etc.)  The attempts to
"make up" with Traveller failed miserably(sp) and so did GDW and almost
Traveller.  I think Mr. Miller has already been thinking about the best
possible solution, a collection of various eras.  My lack of experience
prevents me from making intelligent comments comparing the rules systems,
but I can speak to the history.  I would hate to lose the TNE era as much as
others would hate to lose the CT & MT eras.  I would also like to see other
eras of both history and future.  Finally, I think the most important
information any of us can give Mr. Miller is our pledge of support.  I know
that if I do lose the TNE era and Mr. Miller chooses an alternate resolution
to the rebellion, I will still buy Traveller.  The CT history is set and
from there it grew into the TNE history, but it is still Traveller (dispite
what the "TNE is not Traveller" groups say), and Mr. Miller, barring extreme
changes to the storyline, I will still buy Traveller.

Paul

"I really need to get a good tagline."


PS. If anyone knows of a Traveller gaming group in South
Mississippi/Southeast Louisianna, please let me know.


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

Date: 29 Jan 96 10:01:19 MS
From: Steve Charlton/Avalon Software Inc
To: traveller <mpgn.com!traveller@globe.indirect.com>
Subject: Technology and Design
Message-ID: <9601291714.AA10779@khan.avalon.COM>

P. McGregor did say:
>Look at the "advanced" turretless tanks of TW:2000 - never
>got beyond the drawing board; the G-11 and Caseless ammo weapons, still not
>in production (and given Bundeswehr funding cuts as result of unification,
>seemingly never likely to, either), and likely not to be, ever;

The turretless tanks did show up as a few prototype-only models; I think there
is one in front of the big tank plant in Michigan (can't remember the location,
but I had seen it there about three years ago).  The G-11 is in production on a
customer-order basis, as far as I know; I have seen several working G-11s being
fired at some defense industry shows.  In both cases, somebody had a neat and
potentially-viable idea, but the cost-effectiveness of the idea left something
to be desired.

As for weapons design rules, the "slugthrower" rules seem to be the ones that
most annoy people from a reality standpoint; the artillery rules come out
fairly well, and I think most people who use FF&S are happy enough with the
energy weapons rules (especially after energy weapons were strengthened by
GDW)  There is still some controversy about laser power, but even the laser
rules seem to be accepted.  The lack of rules or guidelines for creating wapons
was a significant weakness in CT and MT.  The multiple versions of some of the
starship heavy weapons helped, but I always found the generic definition of
lasers and missiles to be ridiculous, and the very limited list of personal and
support weapons to be somewhat sad.

Not everybody wants to go through the effort of designing detailed weapons
system, but the sales and usage figures for FF&S show that there are plenty of
people that do.  I have no objection to people not using such rules, and I do
think there should be a large list of "pre-built" components that allows High
Guard-like quick ship and vehicle designs.  However, it is foolishly
self-limiting to insist that just because something is inconvenient to some
people, it should be removed.   If you can provide a consistent, simpler
alternate path for those who don't want/need detail, that is the better
solution.  It is better to cater to both markets instead of just mindlessly
alienating one of them.  The Virus/Reformation Coalition example should be
proof of that.

Steven Charlton
scharlto@avalon.com
scharlto@rtd.com
Official Kibbitzer for Digest Group Publications (DGP)
None of the above reflects the views or concerns of my employers.

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 19:36:50 MET
From: "V.A.G." <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: question about mt2
Message-ID: <212BB600D4@urt-stud.uni-trier.de>

I just finished the game and i wondered how much of it was canon, and
how much was just added on.
For example: are the ancient sites in the game all the way they are
described? Where can i find other references on the looks of the
various sites. Also, are there sites left out or added in the game?
I am planning to use part of the background for a campaign which i
want to play, but i would like more resources!
Comments and help??
VAG
--------------------------------------------------------------
-Don't hold me up: I am just barely ahead of insanity!!!!


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

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 11:53:26 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@csn.net>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Campaign Cartographer
Message-ID: <1.5.4b11.32.19960129175326.006ed420@lynx.csn.net>

At 11:25 am 1/29/96 -0500, you wrote:
>I recently bought a copy of Profantasy's Campaign Cartographer.  My plan
>is to use it for producing World Maps, ship designs, and the like for
>Traveller.  Has anyone used CC for Traveller?  Any hints/templates/advice
>would be helpful.

        Sorry, nothing here. I have heard of it, though, and would be
interested in your comments, likes, dislikes, features, SAMPLE OUTPUT!
 ___________________________________________________________________
  Dave Golden                              PGP Public Key available
  goldendj@whip.com        http://www.whip.com/~goldendj/index.html

  "Faith is not belief without knowledge.
   Faith is trust without reservation." -- unknown


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

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 10:51:48 -0800
From: Christopher_Griffen_at_DMC-SJ3@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: New timeline?  No way!
Message-ID: <10d18990@MailXFER.DMCWAVE.COM>

Responding to Phil McGregor:

>>Why not have CTrav and MTrav era settings now republished as part of a *new
timeline* for all those long- term players who were totally pissed off by the
bad joke that was Virus? Have an alternative ending for the Rebellion ... and
let the players work their way through it, don't just jump 70 or 80 years into
the future!<<

Bad idea.  You're looking at this more from the perspective of a TNE hater,
which apparently you are.  Though theoretically this pleases both sides, what
you'd end up with is the anti-Virus, anti-TNEers, slowly trying to burn the
bridges to the New Era stuff so that eventually the canon becomes this vision of
playing out the next 70-80 years.

Traveller should have _one_ timeline, not several.  At least the official
version.  Otherwise, you risk fragmenting and ruining one of the game's best
features:  it's rich historical background.  If individual refs want to develop
their own post-Rebellion eras, more power to them.  But none of the official,
published, canonized timelines should fragment or otherwise degrade what has
been published to date.

I have another solution:  Traveller 1999.  Create a series of sourcebooks and
other collateral in which you scoot the Trav timeline ahead another 800 years to
the _next_ era, in which the Imperium and surrounding states have metamorphosed
into the 4th Imperium, or whatever.  It won't exactly be the 3rd Imperium, but
at least civilized space as we know it will once again be recognizable.  Virus
can be reduced to nil or made a part of society.

I was pissed, too, when I found out about the extent of Virus and all that.  But
I think it's ridiculous for people to complain about the canonized version when
they can just as well create their own.  Also, Phil, you mentioned never having
heard anyone say they thought Virus was a good idea.  I think you probably just
didn't _listen_ to those who did.  For the record, you've now heard someone say
it.  Virus was a good idea.  Now the RCES and the single storyline GDW tried to
compel us to use, that's another story entirely!

>>The single biggest problem that faces Traveller, increasingly from the time of
MTrav, is its mania with rating things in *real world* terms. As we have seen,
the "advanced" tech of MTrav has been replaced in many instances with
*different* "advanced tech" of TNE simply because of real world developments.<<

I read your first post on your problem with the tech levels some weeks back
about how it's completely unworkable, etc.  Now it's _my_ turn to say I've never
heard someone say something before.  Sure the TL system ain't perfect, but it
makes do.  And I haven't heard much in the way of complaints to the contrary
other than your own.  It puts Traveller in terms we can more or less understand,
even if it is based on the designer's egocentric view of current (TL-8) tech.
The system has enough ambiguity, however, that it can be molded to incorporate
new tech as it's discovered.

CT's computers with "programs" for things like "anti-hijack," "navigation," etc.
were based on late 70s, early 80s DOS- or Apple II- style computers.  Sure it's
anachronistic, but we've done away with that.  Now we've got holodynamic
displays and synaptic interfaces.  As the tech is discovered, the rules are
modified.  Also, nothing's to stop you from adding your own wrinkles.  If Trav
is anything, it's flexible.

Plus, things like the TL tables in Book 4 were terrific at outlining what sort
of technology military units at various TLs would have.  Without that, I'd be
completely lost.

Now, I don't know you, Phil, but are you sure you're not subconsciously (or
consciously?) trying to mold Traveller into Space Opera?

--Chris

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 21:39:48 +0800 (WST)
From: Brian Hoover <hoover@cougar.multiline.com.au>
To: ad2300@YorkU.CA (ad2300)
Subject: ad2300] 2300 Resource list
Message-ID: <199601291339.VAA22921@cougar.multiline.com.au>

Hi,

I've been working on a 2300 resouce list of magazine articles, sourcebooks
and adventures. Here is what I have so far. If anybody has anything which
doesn't appear on this list, then in the name of humanity email it to me!


Traveller 2300 Articles

    2300 Resource087th American President, The
2300 Resource0American FS-17A
2300 Resource0Coming to Terms
2300 Resource0Fighter Craft
2300 Resource1American Battleship Columbia
2300 Resource1First Premiere of Germany
2300 Resource1German SternTruppen
2300 Resource1Hunter-Killer
2300 Resource1Kafer War Update
2300 Resource2French Aconit-Class Frigate
2300 Resource2Life in Zero-G
2300 Resource2Starship Captain
2300 Resource2Stutterwarp Threshold
Challenge27Traveller: 2300 Designer's Notes
Challenge28Astronomischen Rechen-Institut, The
Challenge28Traveller: 2300 Designer's Notes
Challenge29In the Cards
Challenge29Trade in 2300
Challenge30Flight of the Bayern
Challenge30IEX
Challenge30Stutterwarp Technology in 2300
Challenge31Armour in 2300
Challenge31Earth: 2300
Challenge31Spacesuits
Challenge31Sung, The
Challenge32Cayuga-Class Close Escort
Challenge32Papers and Passports
Challenge32Xiang, The
Challenge33Davout
Challenge33Lone Wolf
Challenge33North America: 2300
Challenge33Stutterwarp Revisited
Challenge342300AD Revision, The
Challenge34INAP
Challenge34Thorez
Challenge35World Invaded, A
Challenge36Anatomy of a Missile, The
Challenge36Devil in the Dark
Challenge37Three Blind Mice
Challenge38Star Cruiser Power
Challenge39American Marines, The
Challenge39French Lieutenant's Connection, The
Challenge40Anatomy of a Space Mine
Challenge40Cellular Launcher
Challenge40GDW System Overview
Challenge40M17A1 Armoured Personnel Carrier
Challenge40Riding the Wave: New Equipment
Challenge40Stahlhammer, The
Challenge41Macrocombat
Challenge41Sweet Trade in Space: Piracy, The
Challenge42Manhunt
Challenge42Where Ya From, Mack?
Challenge43AECA
Challenge43Where Ya From, Mate?
Challenge43L-5: Community in the Sky
Challenge43New Cyber Equipment
Challenge44Black Market
Challenge44Highland
Challenge44Social Class in 2300
Challenge45Catch and Carry Team
Challenge45Hot Stuff
Challenge46Contagion
Challenge47New Attack Programs for Cyberjockeys
Challenge48Naval Reservists in 2300
Challenge49Operation Back Door: Episode 1
Challenge50Operation Back Door: Episode 2
Challenge50Ylii, The
Challenge51Operation Back Door: Episode 3
Challenge52Operation Back Door: Episode 4
Challenge53Wired Society
Challenge54Master Race
Challenge55Motorcycles
Challenge56SAMN
Challenge57Cache and Carry
Challenge58Just How Good is Sidearm-5, Anyway?
Challenge59Rock 'n' Roll Never Dies
Challenge60X-Wing Down
Challenge61This is Only a Test
Challenge62Catch as Catch Can
Challenge63Into the Depths
Challenge63Jacked In
Challenge64Drifter
Challenge65One of us Always Stays Awake
Challenge66Diamonds from Premiere
Challenge67Old Enemies
Challenge68Bugout
Challenge69Repo Men
Challenge70Gorgon Hunt
Challenge71Stowaway
Challenge72Bioadversity
Challenge73Edge of Memory, The
Challenge74Survival Course
Challenge 27North American Research League, The
Challenge 34Ogre: 2300
Travellers' Digest12ASV-97: A Multirole Vehicle for the USMC, The
Travellers' Digest12Exploration: American Style- Part 2
Travellers' Digest17Hogan 500, The

Traveller 2300 Publications
Operation Overlord3W
Aurore SourcebookGDW
BeanstalkGDW
Colonial AtlasGDW
Deathwatch ProgramGDW
Earth/Cybertech SourcebookGDW
Equipment GuideGDW
Ground Vehicle GuideGDW
InvasionGDW
Kafer DawnGDW
Kafer SourcebookGDW
Mission ArcturusGDW
Nyotekundu SourcebookGDW
RangerGDW
Ships of the French ArmGDW
S.S. VirginiaSeeker



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Hoover, Perth Australia. hoover@cougar.multiline.com.au Multiline BBS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 11:35:27 -0800
From: Christopher_Griffen_at_DMC-SJ3@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Uh...huh.
Message-ID: <10d23450@MailXFER.DMCWAVE.COM>

>>Yeah, absolutely right, keep it simple, that was the beauty of CT, MT
was getting it far too complicated for it's own good, nice idea
though,just over compicated rules. Then TNE came, well it happened,
but it was like "well let's re-invent traveller again and sell it to
a new audience", it was weak and hey life is about survival of the
fittest. So let's abandon TNE it was a shit idea, virus? do me a
favour (oh dear I've put a U in it) combine the ideas of MT, the
rules from CT, throw in snapshot/striker rules for general combat,
then take it on a few years and establish a factionalised new system,
hey presto new system, naughty in one place good in another where you
can't get arrested.
If any of you TNE maggots don't like it well in the words of Denis
Leary; " shut the f*** up"
love and kisses <<

Is there any way we can keep semi-literate, obscene rants like this from
appearing on the list?  Uh, Rob?

--Chris

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 16:34:31 -0500
From: Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Uh...huh.
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960129213431.006fefec@TanSoft.com>

At 02:36 PM 1/29/96 -0500, you wrote:
Someone else wrote:
>>>Yeah, absolutely right, keep it simple, that was the beauty of CT, MT

[Questionable Remarks Removed]

>Is there any way we can keep semi-literate, obscene rants like this from
>appearing on the list?  Uh, Rob?

This is an example of a list maintainer's worst nightmare.  Where do you
draw the line between censorship and trying to maintain a reasonably a list
that is for the most part not offensive to anyone.

At this point, I am not going to sensor anyone.  The few questionable
content messages are few and far in between.  If it becomes a problem then I
may have to take measures.

For those posting to the list, please try to refrain from using language
that would offend others out of a courtesy to the other Traveller fans out
there.  Please try to avoid flaming others and use alt.flame for those types
of messages.

The Traveller Mailing List and the X-Boat mailing list are both good lists
with a high signal to noise ratio and I would like it to stay that way.

Besides Emperor Strephon never flamed anyone on this list.....

Rob

Thanks
Rob
--
Rob Miracle (rwm@TanSoft.com)| GCS d-->--- !H s:++ !g !p au+ a34 w+ !v C++>++++
Tantalus Inc.  Key West, FL  | UU++++$ P--- L+ 3 E--- N+++ K-  W+ M-- V-- -po+
"You have a problem?  I have | Y-- t++ 5>++ jx R+++ G'''' tv+++ b D B- e++ u**
a plan!" -- Anton Devious    | h---- f r+++ n---- y++++


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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 571
***************************
