    TRAVELLER Digest 490

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Comment on Tirem by Alvin Plummer <alvin.plummer@sheridanc.on.ca>
  2) Re: Starport customs by Steven Bonneville <bonnevil@itlabs.umn.edu>
  3) Re: Solar System by Steven Bonneville <bonnevil@itlabs.umn.edu>
  4) MINIMUM LAW LEVEL by "Glenn M. Goffin" <ggoffin@igc.apc.org>
  5) Sector maps by "Upton, Django" <DUpton@vtrnntov.telecom.com.au>
  6) Re: TRAVELLER digest 487 by Edjs@mindlink.bc.ca (Edward Swatschek)
  7) Trav/MT/TNE gamers in Melbourne by Michael Bailey <pd82495@wapol.gov.au>
  8) Re: Nilsen leaves... then what? by "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
  9) Re: TRAVELLER digest 489 by library@dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
 10) Traveller Mailing List Archive by broussa@ConnectI.com (David C. Broussard)
 11) tml & xtml by Tal Meta <talmeta@cybercomm.net>
 12) Re: MINIMUM LAW LEVELS by "Glenn M. Goffin" <ggoffin@igc.apc.org>

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

Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 07:26:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Alvin Plummer <alvin.plummer@sheridanc.on.ca>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Comment on Tirem
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.951120072139.17633A-100000@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>

On Sun, 19 Nov 1995 traveller@MPGN.COM wrote:

From: "Kelly St.Clair" <kstclair@PEAK.ORG>
> > According to the most common theory, the Belt is the result of the
> > destruction of a small (size 22?) planet
>
> I do hope you meant size 2.  Size 22 is hardly what I'd call small!
>

Nah, I meant a small gas giant: it's a big belt, after all...

> > Tirem is an elongated, misshapen brick of a world, with it's diameter
> > varying from 3000 km to 22,000 km.  [...]  The 21.48 billion people
> > who reside here...
>
> Um... that sound you just heard was my reality check bouncing.
>
> 21.48 BILLION permanent residents on a planetoid like this?  I have to
>   say that if you rolled this up fairly, this is one of the places that
>   the aged and decript World Generation system breaks.

Actually, this is from the RSB! (Don't you just love places like this!)

You could justify this by saying that this is for the entire belt, but it
probably won't wash: if it as, the UWP would be for a belt ( "000" )

> (Then again, a glance at the UWP seems to show a relatively normal world...
>   which Tirem is definitely NOT, as described.  I'd like to know how a
>   size 7 sphere became a 3x22 (?) ribbon, in the designer's mind.)

Funny, funny...

Tirem is supposed to be a single, very bid asteroid in a asteroid belt.
It's the sole pernamently occupied place in the Belt, so the UWP is for a
world, not the Belt as a whole.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alvin Plummer
"Preserve what we created, Norris, and remember what we stood for."
                               - Strephon, 179-1126

Reply to: alvin.plummer@SHERIDANC.ON.CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 12:14:19 -0600
From: Steven Bonneville <bonnevil@itlabs.umn.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Starport customs
Message-ID: <199511201814.MAA04092@betty.itlabs.umn.edu>

>Do this premise and conclusion sound reasonable:
>Even a law level 0 world must adhere to Imperial law in terms of trade.
>Therefore, this means that even law-0 worlds will have customs checks
>for nukes,illegal drugs etc.

Sure.  It'll be done by the starport authority, and the planetary
government won't even get into it.  Typically, Traveller starports
are extraterritorial, and are not part of the local planetary
government.  That doesn't mean that many planetary governments
won't have a *second*, possibly far stricter checkpoint, at the
starport gates.

  Steve Bonneville
  <bonnevil@itlabs.umn.edu>


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

Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 12:27:12 -0600
From: Steven Bonneville <bonnevil@itlabs.umn.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Solar System
Message-ID: <199511201827.MAA04115@betty.itlabs.umn.edu>

Alvin Plummer wrote:
>         Neither Venus, Luna, or
>         Mars has been terraformed
>         in 3700 year's of star
>         travel and high technology?

Luna has an active "environmentalist" movement that wants to limit human
impact on Luna as much as possible, and clean up old eyesores like the
strip-mining scars on Mare Imbrium from the Long Night era, according to
Marc Miller's Dragon article.  DGP mentioned that Venus is believed to
be an Ancient site, and it's a hard terraforming job anyway.  They also
say that Mars *is* being terraformed, and has been for seven centuries.
This may seem like a late start, but it may be that the effort was begun
and abandoned previously.  Besides, traditionally, terraforming efforts
in Traveller are rare, expensive, and incomplete.

Regarding RSB:
>pg. 62  Deneb has a Rw:V.  Rw:V means....?

Refugee World: Vargr.  Details on this are in the subsector library data
text next to the map.

  Steve Bonneville
  <bonnevil@itlabs.umn.edu>


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

Date:          Mon, 20 Nov 1995 12:56:30 +0000
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <ggoffin@igc.apc.org>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: MINIMUM LAW LEVELS
Message-ID: <199511202102.NAA26038@igc3.igc.apc.org>

> From: library@dss.gov.au (DSS Library)

> Dear Folks -
>
> 1.QUERY: MINIMUM LAW LEVELS
>
> Do this premise and conclusion sound reasonable: Even a
> law level 0 world must adhere to Imperial law in terms
> of trade. Therefore, this means that even law-0 worlds
> will have customs checks for nukes, illegal drugs etc.

No, this isn't fully thought out.  Imperial trade law
applies in space, not on worlds.  If a _world's_ law
prohibits drugs, etc., then _its_ customs station, at the
gate between the starport and the world, will search for
them.

Imperial law avoids prohibiting the transportation or
possession of anything -- it's just too much of an
enforcement nightmare.  Imperial trade law is mainly
concerned with setting transportation standards, primarily
for safety ("those californium shells need to be packed in
10cm of lead shielding before you can be cleared for
landing at downport").

On the other hand, where Imperial security is an issue,
Imperial law does authorize Imperial forces to inspect
spaceships (both jump-capable and not).  The Imperium also
typcially deputizes local forces to carry out these
inspections.  Again, however, these are more likely to be
in space when a ship first jumps into the Imperium from
outside, rather than at the starport.

copyright 20 November 1995 Glenn M. Goffin

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

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 95 07:54:00 EST
From: "Upton, Django" <DUpton@vtrnntov.telecom.com.au>
To: tml <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Sector maps
Message-ID: <30B21286@msmailv0.telecom.com.au>


aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton) writes:

 ------------------------------
TNE seems to have broken the tradition of including a big sector map -
Deluxe CT had one, MT boxed set had one, even the computeer games had one!
 ------------------------------

And Deluxe TNE has one too! At least the copy I bought had one.
If you bought Deluxe TNE and it DIDN'T contain a sector map then it looks
like you got a faulty copy.

Django.

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

Date: Mon, 20 Nov 95 14:46:41 -0800
From: Edjs@mindlink.bc.ca (Edward Swatschek)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 487
Message-ID: <m0tHez6-0000R7C@dewey.mindlink.net>

Alvin Plummer writes:
>
> Neither Venus, Luna, or Mars has been terraformed in 3700 year's of star
> travel and high technology?


   With a UPP of F43056A-F, I assume Mars has been terraformed to build up
the atmosphere.  It's present day atmosphere stat should be either 1 or A,
depending on just how thin that CO2 atmosphere is.


--
   Edward Swatschek
   edjs@mindlink.net


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

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 10:04:40 -1600
From: Michael Bailey <pd82495@wapol.gov.au>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: xboat@MPGN.COM
Subject: Trav/MT/TNE gamers in Melbourne
Message-ID: <9511210201.AA04710@phq1002.wapol.gov.au>

Attention Australian Travellers:

I'll shortly be relocating to Melbourne, and would dearly love to muscle my
way in to any Traveller, Megatraveller or TNE campaigns being played
there...if there are any gamers in the home of Real Football with space to
spare in their campaigns, let me know!


Cheers,

Mick
Michael Bailey (pd82495@wapol.gov.au)

"I was implying that the Honorable Member for Wentworth was like a lizard on
a rock - alive, but looking dead"
Prime Minister Paul Keating (on former Opposition Leader John Hewson)


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

Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 19:35:35 -0700
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Nilsen leaves... then what?
Message-ID: <199511210235.AA03298@ns-1.csn.net>

At 02:57 am 11/16/95 -0500, you wrote:
>From:IN%"traveller@MPGN.COM" 15-NOV-1995 17:12:15.56
>To:IN%"traveller@MPGN.COM"  "Multiple recipients of list"
>CC:
>Subj:Nilsen leaves... then what?
>
>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 19:09:18 -0500
>From: Alvin Plummer <alvin.plummer@sheridanc.on.ca>
>Subject: Nilsen leaves... then what?
>Sender: traveller@MPGN.COM
>
>From: Christopher_Griffen_at_DMC-SJ3@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
>
>> 1) [Dave] apparently received an offer from that vicinity... for
>> more money than GDW could pay to keep him on as full time staff.
>>
>> 2) He will still be an associate writer for GDW, and will continue to
>> contribute to Traveller.  He will in all likelihood (again my
>> speculation) no longer be the creative guru for the product line.
>>
>> What do y'all think.  Sounds like trouble to me, especially if it's for
>> financial reasons.
>>
>
>Well, here we go.
>
>If GDW tanks (in, say, three or so years), should we largely keep the New
>Era setting, or simply revert back to pre-Rebellion Traveller with New Era
>rules?  Or try for something completely different? (ie. collapse without
>Virus, Lucan winning the Civil War, etc.)
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Alvin Plummer
>
>Reply to: alvin.plummer@SHERIDANC.ON.CA
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I doubt it's going to take 3 years. I think the ship was taking on water when
>Marc Miller left & is now going down.
>
>I would prefer that we revert to, say, 1115 & assume that those worthless louts
>at IRIS had done their jobs & the Rebellion had never happened. As a second
choice
>I would have the Rebellion happen but be crushed by Lucan's initial attack
& then
>have Lucan assasinated by a Dulinor die-hard mole & have Margaret assume
the throne
>to deal with the various border problems that would have cropped up by then.
>
>Phil
>
>ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu


        Why not just continue as we are now? Some people _like_ the RC. Some
people _like_ the Regency. Some people _like_ the Rebellion. Some people
_like_ the Unshattered Imperium. And some people _like_ their own
home-rolled campaign. Everybody just continues developing the parts they
like, and people can pick and choose the best ideas from each.
 ___________________________________________________________________
  Dave Golden                              PGP Public Key available
  goldendj@whip.com        http://www2.csn.net/~goldendj/index.html

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine


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

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 14:28:11 -0600
From: library@dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 489
Message-ID: <199511220025.OAA07018@babylon5.dss.gov.au>

1.THE GUARDIAN

Lewis posted the "Eternal Guardian" in digest 484. What is the Maintenance
Point value (missing in the stats)?

2.GDW AND THE FUTURE

a.What price a multiverse?

In digest 485, Alvin asked:
>If GDW tanks (in, say, three or so years), should we largely keep the New Era
>setting, or simply revert back to pre-Rebellion Traveller with New Era rules?
>Or try for something completely different?

I wonder if it is possible to do different things? A multiverse perhaps?

I think that one of the strengths of T$R (in comparision) is that it created
different worlds to put settings on. When you are tired of the Monty-Haul
comedy relief (Greyhawk), you can venture into the Realms. If you want "Dark
AD&D", run a Planescape or Dark Sun campaign. If you want mega-battles, try
Battlesystem; for smaller fights, use the Skirmish rules.

Now, I realise that many Traveller players create their own universes. However,
by limiting their "story" to one basic history, I think that GDW failed to win
market share. What happens when people get sick of the standard history? Can
they jump into something else for a while, and return to the old campaign later?
I know people *talked* about historical adventures, for example (eg. J. Andrew
Keith's "Exploration", JTAS 18) - but no official scenarios were published.

Furthermore, if there IS only one overall history, where do the players come in?
If the entire area will be collapsed by Virus, why struggle through the
Trasilon and Vilani Exodus scenarios (Challenge 67-69, and 69-70, respectively)?
It is like watching Aliens again after seeing Aliens 3. You just sit there, like
a friend of mine does, saying "Don't bother. You may as well stop fighting -
you're all going to die" (he says this to annoy us, but you get the idea!).

Can the system support multiple "histories" - or is the one, solid history the
backbone of Traveller, without which it will perish?

b.Modules

Another thing that T$R does reasonably well is to publish immediately-playable
modules. These come with slick packaging in pretty colours, and actually make
you want to buy the product (although admittedly, most of the recent ones have
been "play through the recent novel" - yawn).

GDW has livened up its act with the RC trilogy - these almost make me want to
play a RC campaign for its own sake (almost - I'm still a native of the
Marches!). We should be saying, "More! More!"

Are more modules a possibility, or are we limited to magazine scenarios?

- Hyphen
(David Jaques-Watson)


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

Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 21:31:53 -0600
From: broussa@ConnectI.com (David C. Broussard)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Traveller Mailing List Archive
Message-ID: <9511210331.AA26064@ConnectI.com>

I have finished setting up the Traveller Mailing List Archive.  It is at

http://www.connecti.com/~broussa/traveller.html

Check it out, it contains designs, RICE papers, adventures, and a few other
things.  I am not including the basic discussions as they take up WAY to
much space.  If anyone wants something put there, please E-Mail it to me.
If anyone has any suggestions, feel free to et me know what they are.  If
anyone has a problem with my putting something there PLEASE LET ME KNOW.  I
will not put it there.

Thanx

DCB
David C. Broussard (broussa@connecti.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions represented herein are the sole responsibility of
the proclaimer, and should not be interpreted as dogma, doctrine
philosophy, or anything else other than blabber.  However, if you
REALLY like it, then gimme a dollar!
-----------------------------------------------------------------


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

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 00:03:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Tal Meta <talmeta@cybercomm.net>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: tml & xtml
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.951121000213.28665C-100000@raven.cybercomm.net>

Please subscribe me to both the tml & xtml digests.


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

Date:          Tue, 21 Nov 1995 00:14:02 +0000
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <ggoffin@igc.apc.org>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: MINIMUM LAW LEVELS
Message-ID: <199511210815.AAA18875@igc3.igc.apc.org>

Further to my reply to

> > From: library@dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
>
> > Do this premise and conclusion sound reasonable: Even a
> > law level 0 world must adhere to Imperial law in terms
> > of trade. Therefore, this means that even law-0 worlds
> > will have customs checks for nukes, illegal drugs etc.

I made a remark about

> Imperial law avoids prohibiting the transportation or
> possession of anything -- it's just too much of an
> enforcement nightmare.

Let me develop the "enforcement nightmare" issue a little.

The social contract between the Imperium and its member
states involves requirements and freedoms.

The Imperium is required to provide interstellar security,
including protection from external threats (like invasion),
protection from certain internal interstellar threats (like
piracy), and protection of people and property in
interstellar space (like from unsafe starships).

The member states are required to pay taxes, submit their
young adults to the draft, allow the Imperium to establish
a zone of extrality with a starport within the state, and
otherwise join in the defense of the realm.

The member states are otherwise free from Imperial rule.
The Imperium is otherwise free to disregard the desires or
interests of the member states.

In this paradigm, the Imperium basically doesn't get into
the business of regulating what is made or possessed on
member states.  The only exception is for items that affect
Imperial security.  The best known examples of the
exception are (1) Ancient artifacts, which are all --
discovered and undiscovered -- Imperial property and (2)
nuclear weapons other than those used for Imperial
defense.

As to (2), the Imperial Rules of War prohibit the
possession or use of nuclear weapons in intra-Imperial
conflicts.  Many member states, however, are charged with
Imperial defense and in that capacity allowed or even
required to possess and be able to use nuclear weapons.

For example, a member state that fields SDBs against
pirates or invaders properly arms the SDBs with nuclear
missiles. Similarly, colonial fleet and army units are
armed them with nuclear weapons.  Mercenary units hired by
the Imperium or hired by member states to accomplish tasks
ordered by the Imperium are often allowed or required to
be armed with nuclear weapons.

So, to return to the original question, yes, "a law level
0 world must adhere to Imperial law in terms of trade." The
most important result of this conclusion is that any
starships manufactured on the world must conform to
Imperial Minstry of Transportation standards, notably for
identity/communications (transponder and communications
protocols) and safety (HEKs, lifeboats, pressure sensors
for iris valves, etc.).

In addition, the Imperium may allow, require, or prohibit
the world's defense forces from possessing nuclear weapons.
If the Imperium prohibits nuclear weapons, _Imperial_
officials will take steps to prevent, or at least report,
their importation or manufacture.  Depending on the threat
level perceived by the Imperium, such measures may be
extremely invasive or quite minimal -- usually the latter.
(That's how Zid Rachele and his gang got nukes into the
Scout base on Saki/Deneb.)

If the nuclear weapons are not going to the defense
forces, the Imperium will be interested as soon as it
finds out, whether such possession violates local law or
not.  The Imperium won't require the world to enforce the
Imperial Rule of War against unauthorized nuclear weapons
-- it will just send the Marines.

copyright 20 November 1995 Glenn M. Goffin

"When someone makes a move of which we don't approve, who
is it that always intervenes?  Well ONI and IISS have their
place, I guess, but first, send the Marines!"
(with apologies to Tom Lehrer)

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 490
***************************
