			    TRAVELLER Digest 135

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: Laser Penetration	by CyHiggin@aol.com
  2) Re: TRAVELLER digest 133	by CyHiggin@aol.com
  3) Tech. Discussions on the TML	by merrick@RT66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)

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

Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 19:53:01 -0500
From: CyHiggin@aol.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Laser Penetration
Message-ID: <941217195258_713849@aol.com>

From: Liam_McCauley@qsp.co.uk

About sub-1 IPR for lasers:

>     I am quite keen to receive some more feedback, since I don't fancy 
>     designing the McCauley Arms range of Lasers if my thoughts about IPRs 
>     < 1 are flawed.

Sounds good to me.  I had already decided to do the same thing when I saw
your letter, so I didn't propose it again.  I noted that <1 IPR lasers will
not penetrate hard armor and do damage at all, but they still have excess
energy left for vaporizing flesh.. I think GDW merely overlooked that.  How's
that for feedback? 

                                               -- Cynthia

"Welcome to the unemployment line, you Democratic scumbags!" - Ken Hagler
"Ditto." - Cynthia


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

Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 19:53:06 -0500
From: CyHiggin@aol.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 133
Message-ID: <941217195305_713956@aol.com>

From: Mark Fletcher <mf1@st-andrews.ac.uk>

> I didnt subscribe to this list so that I could join in on the 
>discussion of whether or not Traveller obeys the laws of Physics 
>(and it most certainly doesnt)

(1) As a long time reader of this list, I have observed that these
things come and go: technical discussions of interest only to
the 3 people participating in them will fill the list for weeks, only
to be suddenly replaced with a flurry of ship designs, amber zones,
worlds, generally neat ideas, and the start of the NEXT boring technical
argument.

(2) The best way to break up a dull discussion thread is NOT to complain
about it -- it is to contribute something more interesting.  This usually
inspires other, equally bored lurkers to contribute similarly interesting
material.

(3) Remember, it is Christmas break.  A good chunk of the TML is "home for
the holidays" and not reading or contributing.  The TML is always dull this
time of year.

>Remember its only a game. If you want to play hard 
>science-fiction, go play 2300AD (another damn fine
> roleplaying game, GDW bring out a supplement on it).

<FLAME warning on>
Excuse me, but where do you get off telling people how they MUST play
Traveller?  Maybe some of us WANT to play hard science fiction with the TNE
ruleset and in the Traveller universe!  Apparently, a *lot* of us feel that
way, judging from the number of technical discussions that go by.  If you
don't want to play it that way, then don't!  But don't tell others they
can't.
<FLAME warning off.>

                                 -- Cynthia

"Welcome to the unemployment line, you Democratic scumbags!" - Ken Hagler
"Ditto." - Cynthia


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

Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 18:49:11 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@RT66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Tech. Discussions on the TML
Message-ID: <9412180149.AA05573@RT66.com>

Just my $0.02 on this:

> From: Mark Fletcher <mf1@st-andrews.ac.uk>
> > I didnt subscribe to this list so that I could join in on the 
> >discussion of whether or not Traveller obeys the laws of Physics 
> >(and it most certainly doesnt)
> 
> (1) As a long time reader of this list, I have observed that these
> things come and go: technical discussions of interest only to
> the 3 people participating in them will fill the list for weeks, only
> to be suddenly replaced with a flurry of ship designs, amber zones,
> worlds, generally neat ideas, and the start of the NEXT boring technical
argum
> ent.

Some people *like* technical discussions.  Also, I've tried to put some
emphasis on how rules fixes I'm working on relate to players.  It frequently
isn't a problem of *physics*, but rather it is one of consistancy.  I've made
an attempt to announce my biases along with the new whatever I post (though
those kind of comments get left out of the replys frequently).

> (2) The best way to break up a dull discussion thread is NOT to complain
> about it -- it is to contribute something more interesting.  This usually
> inspires other, equally bored lurkers to contribute similarly interesting
> material.

True enough.  If everyone posts something of interest to themselves, they'll
be lots of neat stuff to choose from, this is easier to do if the subject
line is
descriptive.

> >Remember its only a game. If you want to play hard 
> >science-fiction, go play 2300AD (another damn fine
> > roleplaying game, GDW bring out a supplement on it).
> 
> <FLAME warning on>
> Excuse me, but where do you get off telling people how they MUST play
> Traveller?  Maybe some of us WANT to play hard science fiction with the TNE
> ruleset and in the Traveller universe!  Apparently, a *lot* of us feel that
> way, judging from the number of technical discussions that go by.  If you
> don't want to play it that way, then don't!  But don't tell others they
> can't.
> <FLAME warning off.>
> 
>                                  -- Cynthia
> "Welcome to the unemployment line, you Democratic scumbags!" - Ken Hagler
> "Ditto." - Cynthia

Technical "problems" can also end up being nifty plot devices.  SF is full of
nifty physical situations and their solutions.  Something to remember...

-Merrick

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 135
***************************
