TRAVELLER Digest 549

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) New Traveller format question by "Christopher Weuve" <caw@intercon.com>
  2) New rules vs. house rules by Christopher_Griffen_at_DMC-SJ3@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
  3) Re: TRAVELLER digest 548 by aswfh@acad2.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
  4) Re: New rules vs. house rules by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  5) Re: New Traveller format question by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  6) The Ten Traveller Books I Would Like to See by Steve Charlton/Avalon Software Inc
  7) What happens to Challenge? by E.Watters@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK
  8) Re: TRAVELLER digest 547 by Benjy Barton <Benjy@iap.net.au>
  9) Subscribing info by Led Mirage <lmirage@io.org>
 10) Re: TRAVELLER digest 547 by library@babylon5.dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
 11) FFS Lite by "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk>
 12) Re: FFS Lite by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
 13) RE: TRAVELLER digest 548 by robert.brennan@isocor.ie
 14) Re: What happens to Challenge? by "Christopher Weuve" <caw@intercon.com>
 15) Re: Traveller's direction by Liam_McCauley@qsp.co.uk
 16) Space Opera by Phillip McGregor <aspqrz@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>
 17) TRAVELLER digest 547 by Douglas Berry <dberry@mailhost.hooked.net>

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 18:29:54 -0500
From: "Christopher Weuve" <caw@intercon.com>
To: xboat@MPGN.COM, traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: New Traveller format question
Message-ID: <9601151829.AA54050@caw.intercon.com>

Hello,

Since there is all sorts of discussion about the rebirth of Travller, I have
done some thinking (along with everyone else) about formats, and I have a
question:

What do people think of the "Star Wars Adventure Journal" concept?

If you haven't seen it, it is a 288-page, trade-size, book-quality companion
to the Star Wars RPG published 8 times a year by WEG.  It includes fiction, a
regular columns on equipment, real news, storyline "news", etc. -- sort of a
JTAS on steroids.

I think this format (like the earlier JTAS format) has a lot of potential, and
I think including fiction will both help to flesh out the background and
attrack non-RPGers -- after all, the more people that subsidize it, the more
money Marc Miller has to spend on new supplements.  Every so often the best of
the supplements could be gathered in subject specific books (tech manual,
etc.) to supplement the original release and support books.

The advantage of such a system is that no one has to wait for the specific
supplements, yet all the information will eventually be collected in one
location.

One disadvantage is that carrying all the stuff you might need might get a
little harder. A second disadvanatage, which I think can be easily avoided
with discipline and forethought, is that it promotes "Star Fleet Battles
Syndrome", where every supplement modifies the existing rules structure.

[Of course, what I _really_ want is Alvin Plummer's series of 400 page
supplements...]

Christopher Weuve  [caw@intercon.com]
Through sheer random chance, my employer may
someday agree with something I say.


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

Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 16:14:35 -0800
From: Christopher_Griffen_at_DMC-SJ3@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: New rules vs. house rules
Message-ID: <0faef240@MailXFER.DMCWAVE.COM>

>>Also, while the MT rules were a
logical extension and expansion of CT, the TNE rules came right out of
left field with a completely new system.  I have no idea why they did
this, it turned off a number of old players I'm sure (me, for one!)
Someone said that White Wolf is doing well because they put out tons of
background and don't worry about rules.  One of the reasons they can do
this is that the rules are bonehead simple, and that's the way it should
be.  With some tweaking I think a revised MT rules set would be excellent.<<

Simplicity is good, but too much of anything can be a bad thing.  While
Traveller's rich background is its most admirable feature, one of the other
things it's had going for it, at least since the days of MegaTrav, is the
attempt to be realistic.  Traveller should continue to be a hard-science game,
with plenty of speculative sci-fi goodies thrown in for good measure.

I wouldn't be offended if MM and crew simplified the combat system a bit, but
reverting to the use of one's STR, END and CON for "hit points" is not
acceptable.  Neither is the too-cut-and-dried system of MegaTrav.  Too easy to
get killed without any medical miracle recourses.

I know some of you probably conduct great roleplaying sessions or maybe even
whole campaigns in which not a single shot is fired.  Through CT, MT and TNE, I
must admit that some of the best sessions we've had involved negotiation and
interaction over gunplay, but IMO a good firefight once in awhile makes the game
fun.  Searching far and wide for interstellar botanic samples or engaging in the
Traveller version of "My Dinner with Andre" is not my idea of a good time.

To that end, I'd like to see a good realistic combat system put in place.  To
date, TNE has presented the most realistic one.  It's a bit cumbersome, but
perhaps if some of the dead weight were shed, it would be successful.

>>Also, I LOVE the idea of FF&S LITE.<<

Me too.  Go easy on the technical explanations and just set up a good
comprehensive, easy-to-use tech creation system.

--Chris

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 15:42:07 -0900
From: aswfh@acad2.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
To: traveller <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 548
Message-ID: <v01530502ad20a1f7bdbb@[137.229.100.63]>

[much of Phil's gripeing snipped]
>I (and *all* the members of the gaming groups that I have belonged to over
>the years) thought that Megatraveller (and, now, FF&S) ship design rules
>are an unmitigated disaster. Most simply refuse to acknowledge their existence
>*at all* and use High Guard (or bootlegged copies thereof) ... though they
>might use some of the stuff from MTrav to tweak High Guard designs a little
>bit in a handful of cases. I mean, it stands to reason, if Traveller was
>such a resounding success with MTRav and TNE design rules, they'd still
>be in business!

Well, phil, that there would alienate 2/3 of all traveller players I know.
My group and the others I know all prefer MT's design sequence.

>5) Megatraveller: Task Resolution -- I am surprised that there is *anyone*
>out there who thinks that the Task Resolution system of MTrav was anything
>but a complete waste of space. Never used it, don't know anyone who did (or,
>if they did, who did for very long), longwinded, overly complex, and generally
>unuseable. Even Classic Trav was better.

It's simple, detailed enough and easy. It takes me 10 minutes to get people
using it. Less for most.

>As for TNE, the main problem is that it is TW:2000 in alll ways. Now, don't
>get me wrong, I think that TW:2000 is a neat little system, but it should
>have been presented with the *roleplaying* elements to the fore in TNE. I
>suspect that one of the reasons that TNE hasn't succeeded is because it
>forces people to play a combat wargame version of an RPG ... and most people
>are attracted to Traveller because of the richness of its roleplaying
>background. You only have to look at the Space Vikings and Regency Material
>published to date ... heavy on the firepower and military action. Even MTrav
>and the Civil War didn't do that.
>
>Well, there's a lot more, but that's all for now.

Yes, but this was a repeat post anyway, so please make it NEW gripes!

>Phil McGregor
>(Co-designer of "Space Opera")

Oh, and phil, if you dislike Traveller's rules THAT much, why not find
something you DO like, and use it instead. Basically it sounds like the
only thing about traveller (any edition) is High Guard and the Background
Material, and would rather trash tthe rest of the system.

-Wil

William F. Hostman

EMail:          ANWFH@Orion.Alaska.EDU
HomePage:       http://orion.alaska.edu/~aswfh/index.html

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 17:34:32 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: New rules vs. house rules
Message-ID: <9601160034.AA08211@Rt66.com>

> >>Also, I LOVE the idea of FF&S LITE.<<
>
> Me too.  Go easy on the technical explanations and just set up a good
> comprehensive, easy-to-use tech creation system.

I think that to some extent, "easy to use", and "comprehensive" are mutually
exclusive.  On the other hand, I think a FFS Light is very possible.  As
I see it, an FFS Light system would be for creating complex systems out
of premade subsystems.  Much like building a ship in HG using standard
bays, turrets, etc..  The nitty gritty tech needs to have some set of
guidelines, and these, I think, need to be more detailed.  But if the
systems are done right, those who don't want/have the detailed rules,
just use the plug-ins, and gear-heads can make new plug-ins for a new
JTAS publication.

Having a system that gives results in MJs, MWs,l etc., then converts
them via a fudge factor to a damage value, g-turn, armor value, whatever
is a good thing.  I can take a 150MJ laser and use a different
coefficient to get the damage value if a different combat system is
chosen... also, having a feel for how things are produced for the games
as it stands makes designing unknow technologies easier and more
consistant (assuming the design rules are consistant to begin with---so
we're not talking off the shelf FFS for some systems :-)

An improved FFS needs to have the extremes played out before publication
so that technologies extant in the traveller universe make sense as they
are used.  Lasers in TNE are a great example of this since none of the
published warships makes any sense given the laser design rules in FFS.
GDW actually did the right thing in making more "historical" ship
designs, but didn't play around with FFS enough to notice that the
published ships were obsolete given unrestricted laser weapons.

---Merrick

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 17:41:18 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: New Traveller format question
Message-ID: <9601160041.AA09166@Rt66.com>

> What do people think of the "Star Wars Adventure Journal" concept?
>
> If you haven't seen it, it is a 288-page, trade-size, book-quality companion
> to the Star Wars RPG published 8 times a year by WEG.  It includes fiction, a
> regular columns on equipment, real news, storyline "news", etc. -- sort of a
> JTAS on steroids.

Sounds interesting.  I always liked JTAS.  Hell, JTAS (with the addition
of a little art, and the news service (combined with a "The way things
were 100, 1000, whatever years ago" section to support the other time
periods)) could be done frequently just with stuff from the TML.  I'd
make ships, whatever in the public domain if it would help get a new
traveller off the ground.

> One disadvantage is that carrying all the stuff you might need might get a
> little harder. A second disadvanatage, which I think can be easily avoided
> with discipline and forethought, is that it promotes "Star Fleet Battles
> Syndrome", where every supplement modifies the existing rules structure.

Another reason, IMO, for something like FFS to gell up some of the
technologies.  Also, I prefer rules additions to be optional rules that
sit on top of existing rules.  It seems to me that many rules additions
(if not all) can be done in such a way that they don't supercede
previous rules.

---Merrick

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

Date: 15 Jan 96 16:30:27 MS
From: Steve Charlton/Avalon Software Inc
To: FarFuture <FarFuture@aol.com>
Cc: traveller <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: The Ten Traveller Books I Would Like to See
Message-ID: <9601152342.AA05733@khan.avalon.COM>

Dear Marc Miller,

Thanks very much for being willing to listen to Traveller players about what we
would like to see in Traveller.  It is really good to know that you are
involved once again in Traveller, and I hope this go-round exceeds all
expectations for both success and quality.  I saw a recent post from you where
you asked what books/material we would like to see come out of you new
Traveller effort.  Here is my take on it.  Sorry about the length.

Note - I have used "Third Imperium" throughout this document, but TNE basically
put paid to that organization.  If that premise is kept, simply replace Third
Imperium with whatever successor state seems appropriate.

1.  The Basic Game
A three-volume set (I'm a sucker for tradition) consisting of a Players Book, a
Setting Book and a GM's Book.
The Player's book would have the character generation rules and career
guidelines, melee and fire combat rules, and basic equipment prices and
descriptions.  It would also have a general library of data for the Third
Imperium, some historical information about the setting, an overall map of the
Imperium, and maybe some general info on the society, culture, nobility and
corporations of the Third Imperium.
The Setting Book would focus on a portion of the third imperium, with
background and history, information on some alien races from the local area
(with some basic character generation rules), career rules for jobs specific to
the area, and maps and statistics for one sector (the Spinward Marches -
Tradition rears its ugly head once again).  The format of this Setting Book
could be duplicated for other sectors, which would be sold separately.  Since
all of the Player and GM info is in the other books, the Setting Book format
would allow players and GMs to buy multiple sectors without duplicating data.
The GM book would have rules for creating worlds and star systems, mercantile
rules, starship and vehicle combat rules, and a simplified system for designing
ships and vehicles.  There would also be an expanded listing of goods and
services, including material not normally available to the characters.
Finally, this book would cover Psionics.

2.  Advanced Equipment Book
A book or boxed set consisting of equipment design rules for creating new
vehicles, starships, robots, weapons, etc.  The book would include some sample
designs, and at least one sample walk-through of each design sequence.  This
book could include a expanded equipment price list.  All equipment in all of
the Traveller books would be designed via this book, and would follow the rules
and strictures of the design sequence involved.  And finally, all of the design
sequences should come with a stable of "predesigned components" for those of us
who do not always want to play number cruncher.  I like to have the option of
being quick and using predesigned material, but I also very much like being
able to design things from scratch.  Having these predesigned components would
give us the flexibility of the FF&S when desired, and the simplicity of CT/MT
when desired.

3.  Advanced Starship Set
A boxed set consisting of the expanded ship construction rules (same as those
in the Advanced Equipment Book), a more detailed starship combat system, and a
more simplified starship combat system to be played as a tabletop game,
allowing faster resolution of starship battles regardless of ship size.  I
would suggest that this set come with a book called "Naval Forces of the
Imperium" which details the Imperial Navy organizations and structures,
standard Imperial Navy ship designs and some additional historical info.  Also,
the book should have some vastly expanded naval careers.  Info on the navies of
other states could be presented in an abbreviated format in this boxed set,
with the possibility of being expanded in books specific to those states later
(A Zhodani book, etc).

4.  Advanced Combat Set
A boxed set with mass combat rules, conversion rules for vehicles/equipment
from the Basic and Advanced Rules, and maps and counters.  The set would also
need organizational info on some Imperial, mercenary and other military
forces.  I would suggest that this set come with a book called "Armed Forces of
the Imperium" which details Imperial Army and Marine organizations and
structures, standard Imperial military equipment and some additional historical
info.  Also, the book should have some vastly expanded military careers.  Info
on the military of other states could be presented in an abbreviated format in
this boxed set, with the possibility of being expanded in books specific to
those states later (A Zhodani book, etc).

5.  Exploration and Colonization Sourcebook
A book with rules and adventure ideas for exploring and colonizing new sectors,
subsectors and worlds.  This book would include vastly expanded career info for
the Scout Service, standard IISS ship and equipment designs, and expanded world
generation/description rules (including cultural info).

6.  Mercantile Sourcebook
A book with rules and adventure ideas for buying and selling in an interstellar
marketplace.  This would include expanded and enhanced interstellar trade
rules, rules for detailing a world's economy (maybe duplicated from the
Exploration and Colonization book above), vastly expanded career info for
merchants, standard or common mercnatile ship designs, and expanded info on
Imperial megacorporations and their smaller competitors.

7.  Atlas of the Imperium
I loved that book.  I would have liked more detail, though; not necessarily all
of the UPPs, but a page of info for each sector detailing the sector and
subector capittals and leadership, plus some tidbits of info about each sector
(like the subsector blurbs in the old Spinward Marches and Solomani Rim books.
Basically, each sector would get two pages; one of map, and one of background
information, which would make it trwice as large as its predecessor.

8.  Setting Books
More books detailing other sectors of the Third Imperium.  The Setting Book
would focus on a portion of the third imperium, with background and history,
information on some alien races from the local area (with some basic character
generation rules), career rules for jobs specific to the area, and maps and
statistics for one sector.   This book could be done with each subsector
getting its own page, with the facing page having the UPPs and other
interesting info about the sector.  That would be 32 pages.  The book woul also
have a full-page sector map on both inside covers; one showing world names and
starports, and the other only showing such info for high-population worlds
(like the old Atlas of the Imperium, but no ugly square grids!).  There would
also be a consolidated listing ot the sector's UPPs, and a section covering the
additional historical, background, career and alien info noted above.  The
gatefold could have a two-page reproduction of the sector map as well (like the
5th Frtontier War campaign book).  All in all, this could be done in 48-64
pages.

9.  Alien Books
Books detailing Alien Races.  The book would have expanded career info for the
alien race, historical and cultural info, equipment peculiar to the race
(ships, vehicles, weapons, whatever).  It should also have an equipment price
list in monetary units common to the alien race, and changes to economic,
trade, exploration or colonization rules that would be warranted for that race,
plus expanded info on the armies and navies of the alien race (and their
equipment).  Finally, the book could also include one sector as described
above.  The inside covers should be used for anatomical studies like those in
the old GDW Aliens books (I loved those drawings!  Was that Tom Peters?).  If
the book included a sector, it could be done in a 128-page book, conceivably.
Without the sector, it could fit in a 74-76 page book.  There would be one each
for the Zhodani, Aslan, Vargr, K'kree, Drone and Hivers.   Some of the smaller
races (Darrians, Vegans) could be covered in the Setting Books specific to
their sectors, rather than having an entire Alien book devoted to them.

10.  The Imperial Sourcebook
The book I always wished was around.  This book would detail the Imperial
government, the interaction of the nobility and the bureaucracy, the various
ministries and offices of the Imperium, the covert and law enforcement
agencies, and the laws of the Imperium.  The book would have expanded career
rules for various Imperial jobs (noble, bureaucrats, secret agents, etc), and
would also have an expanded history of the Third Imperium.


I've been playing Traveller since 1982, and being the greedy sort I've tried to
get pretty much everything that has been published, at least by GDW.  As you
can see, a lot of the things I have detailed are very analogous to Classic
Traveller or T:TNE products:  Item 2 is basically Fire, Fusion and Steel;  Item
3 is a sort of mixture of Brilliant Lances, Battle Rider and High Guard; Item 4
is a mixture of FF&S, Mercenary and Striker I and II; Item 5 is basically
Scouts, the DGP Grand Survey/Grand Census books and the World Tamers Handbook,
etc.  I think a lot of good material is already out there, and you could really
accomplish a lot by simply trying to combine it together in new ways, editing
it for clarity and consistency.  That might make this Herculean task before you
a little less Impossible (maybe even downgrading it to Ridiculously Difficult).

I really enjoyed Classic Traveller.  I was disappointed with the quality of the
MegaTraveller material, but still enjoyed the game.  I was absolutely torn by
the New Era, though:  I really liked the new character ad combat rules (even
better than Classic Traveller, to be honest) but I truly loathed the
background.  I have seen that many people felt the TNE system was too
militaristic or wargame-like, but I don't agree that is true; a campaign is as
militaristic as you want it to be.  This seems like a problem with people
confusing the Background with the Rules.  The TNE character rules are simply
that; character rules that allow a player to meet, speak, drink with, punch,
shoot, chat up, connive or verbally dazzle NPCs and other players.  I do think
the TNE background was too combat-centric, but that did not bother me too much,
as I was using my own (continuing Third Imperium) background instead.  I have
plenty of combat using the TNE rules, but I have plenty of character
interaction and roleplay as well.  Blaming a set of character rules for some GM
being unable to come up with noncombat adventure situations seems a bit silly.

As for the future of Traveller, I hope you move forward using the TNE rules
set.  The main reason for this is Fire, Fusion and Steel.  This is to me the
most amazing sourcebook, and it has become my number one favorite aspect about
Traveller.  Most SF RPGs let you design starships, and many allow you to design
vehicles, but how many let you design battle armor, or lasers, or fire
directors?   I know some of the results are less than realistic, but it is a
Science Fiction GAME, not a science class.  My only complain with FF&S is that
you are limited in what can be designed; no sea vessels, no robots, no really
high-tech things like teleporters, etc.  However, its still a damn good
starting point.   If you were to decide to go more with a CT/MT system, I hope
you would take the time to convert FF&S to this new system.  I know it is a lot
of extra work, but the benefits of that sourcebook far outweigh the
inconvenience of conversion.

I hope you've found something useful in all of this.  If there is anything I
can do to help (or clarify the statements above), don't hestitate to ask.  I
imagine some of my opinions will be feuling another TML flame war anyway, so a
response from you would not hurt much.

Thanks you, and Good Luck

Steve Charlton
scharlto@avalon.com
scharlto@rtd.com

PS Bri -if you are reading this, I have not forgotten you.  I'll have something
to you by the end of the week.  Sorry for the delay.

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 02:21:39 +0000
From: E.Watters@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: What happens to Challenge?
Message-ID: <0099C741.D507F300.1@v2.qub.ac.uk>


The title says it all - who has the rights to Challenge, and what are they
going to do with this excellent magazine?

Eamon.


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

Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 10:43:09 +0800
From: Benjy Barton <Benjy@iap.net.au>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 547
Message-ID: <30FB10BD.2887@iap.net.au>

I think that there will alway be disagreement on which set of rules to
use because, of the way people are.  I Own all of Traveller(CT), all of
Mega-Traveller(MT) and all of Traveller The New Era(TNE) and i like
playing TNE, but thats just my cup of tea.

I think that if you released new Adventures you support all three games
because all the backround and story will be the same, you will just need
three sets of tech info. hell the same could be said about any new
source book you release.

This comes down to a few extra pages, that please all partys (i hope).
--
        It's Better to Burn out,then to Fade away!!!!
Highlander

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 23:52:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Led Mirage <lmirage@io.org>
To: Traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Subscribing info
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960115235100.6541A-100000@zap.io.org>

Hi! I just want to know, how to scribve to this list (I couldn't find the
info). Please email me, thanks. (And sorry for the intrusion).

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 17:10:19 -0600
From: library@babylon5.dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 547
Message-ID: <199601170309.RAA02044@babylon5.dss.gov.au>

Dear Folks -

>From: herder@ix.netcom.com (Richard Herder )
>
>I know about the Ancients, but I have seen references to
>Primordials/sparklers.  What are these?  Does anybody have info?

I have sent details to Richard.

- Hyphen
(David Jaques-Watson)


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

Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 07:57:41 GMT
From: "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: FFS Lite
Message-ID: <158@odonovan.demon.co.uk>

I think FFS lite could be done quite easily with:

- More drop in weapons  - spinal mounts and bays, and some of our non GF lasers

- Simplified thruster units - Including basic fuel reserves and definitely
based on displacement not mass. (we could increase the thrust required per
displacement ton a bit to balance this)

- Simplified Ship's systems - All Life support, controls added together

- Sensors arranged in 4-5 'packages' - eg Merchant, Fighter, Light battleship,
Heavy Battleship, Survey...

- Simplified tech levels for the sensor packages - eg TL16 mutiplies weight,
cost, power, etc by 0.25 of the base values. This loses some detail, but
removes the need for all those tables.

- Plug in options for carried vessels eg Fighter, Lifeboat, Landers (some of
these would need to be designed)

- Plug in stealth options - Stealth1 - EMM
                            Stealth2 - EMM and Decoys
                            Stealth3 - EMM and Decoys and Jammers ......

- Simplified crew details - X crew per 100MCr of ship (perhaps depending on
type, so warships need more crew), the proportions or minimums for crew
determined by ship type. So while warships might have 10% ships troops, luxury
liners might substitute 10% stewards

One of the major pains of ship design which would be harder to remove would be
the calculations of damage values and more significantly the production of
damage tables for use with BL. Perhaps these steps could be simplified by
producing archetypal 'damage tables' for a few different classes of ship. After
all, damage allocation within Engineering or Electronics is still random and
not based on actual volumes.
--
Brendan

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 03:57:44 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: FFS Lite
Message-ID: <9601161057.AA03483@Rt66.com>


Stuff on FFS Light:

>- More drop in weapons  - spinal mounts and bays, and some of our non GF lasers

Makes sense.  In my personal system, I include a line for the PP volume
required to support a given weapon at max ROF.  In this way I get the PP
volume figured out as I go.

> - Simplified thruster units - Including basic fuel reserves and definitely
> based on displacement not mass. (we could increase the thrust required per
> displacement ton a bit to balance this)

At TL 14-14 the drives (Mdrive plus the PP to support it) use 1.55% of
displacement per g, at TL15 it's 0.95% per g.

At all TLs, 50 g-turns is 22.32% of total displacement.

> - Simplified Ship's systems - All Life support, controls added together

1.8% of displacement works above TL10 (LS and Grav Comp).

Quarters run under 5% of displacement for all ships in all versions of
traveller that I looked at in a quick survey (including FFS ships!).

>- Sensors arranged in 4-5 'packages' - eg Merchant, Fighter, Light battleship,
> Heavy Battleship, Survey...

Cost is the major factor in sensors.  I have a few of these done up by
TL already.

> - Simplified tech levels for the sensor packages - eg TL16 mutiplies weight,
> cost, power, etc by 0.25 of the base values. This loses some detail, but
> removes the need for all those tables.

That or just a table with TL as a heading, then type as a sub-heading.
Due to the cut offs of sensors they're be a lot of TL12-13 Blah blah.
TL14-15, blah blah... you get the idea, there won't need to be entries
for each TL.

> - Plug in options for carried vessels eg Fighter, Lifeboat, Landers (some of
> these would need to be designed)

Already pretty easy (I assume that FFS Light can be as complicated as HG
if needed.

> - Plug in stealth options - Stealth1 - EMM
>                             Stealth2 - EMM and Decoys
>                             Stealth3 - EMM and Decoys and Jammers ......

Makes sense.

>- Simplified crew details - X crew per 100MCr of ship (perhaps depending on
> type, so warships need more crew), the proportions or minimums for crew
>determined by ship type. So while warships might have 10% ships troops, luxury
> liners might substitute 10% stewards

For major ships I don't even bother.  I use 5% displacement for crew,
and write down a ball park figure for description based on CT/MT crew
levels of similar ships.

>One of the major pains of ship design which would be harder to remove would be
> the calculations of damage values and more significantly the production of
> damage tables for use with BL. Perhaps these steps could be simplified by
>producing archetypal'damage tables' for a few different classes of ship. After
> all, damage allocation within Engineering or Electronics is still random and
> not based on actual volumes.

This doesn't matter to me since for BR you don't need damage locations
at all.  For detailed ships, I do real FFS.  On the other hand, assuming
you have the sub-systems premade, doing full FFS only involves any math
for the hull.  None of it is complicated anyway.  It suffers more from
lack of clarity than difficulty, IMO.

On the other hand, since player sized ships are the only ones I really
detail out, standard hulls make sense.  I cost out standard types at a
much reduced price since it always seemed like Free Traders were too
expensive to make ends meet.  If the hulls are standard, and you have
sensors, controls, and weapons premade, doing a ship is all plug and
chug.

-Merrick

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

Date: 16 Jan 96 11:39:40 +0100
From: robert.brennan@isocor.ie
To: traveller@MPGN.COM (Non Receipt Notification Requested)
Subject: RE: TRAVELLER digest 548
Message-ID: <GUID:QuKYuhl4xHRCwmQAAwFvilQ*/G=robert/S=brennan/PRMD=isocor/ADMD=e
irmail400/C=ie@MHS>

Someone asked:
Here's an interesting question:  If MM does publish a revised MT rules
set, what should it be called?
-------------
How about Giga-Traveller? <grin>

Seriously though folks, my vote is definately for a MT 2nd edition, ie
with a bit of proofreading and streamlining.  FF&S lite also sounds
like the way to go.  I like the idea of layered rules-sets offering the
ability to pick and choose a level of complexity for the different modules
of the rules.  However I cannot stress enough that this sort of system has
 to be designed from the onset, otherwise we will end up with a set of
overlapping, unmanageable and conflicting references a la CT. (I still
loved it thought ;)

rgds
Rob

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 08:07:51 -0500
From: "Christopher Weuve" <caw@intercon.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: What happens to Challenge?
Message-ID: <9601160807.AA51110@caw.intercon.com>

>  The title says it all - who has the rights to Challenge, and what
> are they going to do with this excellent magazine?

According to GDW late last week, it is unsure as yet what will happen with it.
GDW is giving people credit towards merchandise for their remaining Challenge
subscriptions.

I certainly hope someone buys it.  While I have some problems with it, it is
the only dedicated cross-platform mag outthere.

Christopher Weuve  [caw@intercon.com]
Through sheer random chance, my employer may
someday agree with something I say.


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

Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 13:24:20 +0100
From: Liam_McCauley@qsp.co.uk
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Traveller's direction
Message-ID: <0fbab9e0@pc173.qsp.co.uk>

     There's been a lot of interesting discussion about the direction of
     Traveller.  I'd just like to voice my opinion now.

     FEEL

     I would like a simple system that has the right "feel".  Some systems
     just feel right for the game or genre (frex, I think the system for
     Call of Cthulhu is very good for that game).  For some reason, I
     didn't mind the Bushido system for combat where you had to roll an
     amount under your weapon skill rating that equaled or exceeded your
     opponent's armour rating, yet I hated the D&D system of rolling a
     target number or higher on a table cross referenced by your level (&
     thus weapon skill) and your opponent's armour, despite the fact that
     both systems were functionally identical.  I'm not sure how you impart
     a certain feel to a rules system (other than perhaps by the art &
     writing style), but I know it's important.

     EMPHASIS

     I would like the emphasis to be on something other than combat.
     That's not to say that I think the combat system should not be well
     done or accurate.  On the contrary, I like combat systems that produce
     accurate results without being too complex (I speak from the
     experience of experimenting using Phoenix Command as the combat system
     for a MT game - accurate? yes. fast? noooooo).  I can just about cope
     with Millenium End's combat system, because although it's quite
     complex, my players know they have a good chance of dying or being
     crippled, so they only engage in gunplay as a last resort.
     Back to my original point, I think the emphasis in TNE was too much on
     using force.  The whole star viking, smash & grab thing was a bit too
     military for me.  I can play T2000 if I want to go and "kick ass", or
     Cyberpunk if I want to get my ass kicked (hi Dave).  A game should
     concentrate on elements of its genre.  Ars Magica concentrates on
     magic and Mythic Europe; Call of Cthulhu on the Mythos and the roaring
     twenties; Star Wars on weird aliens and heroic action.  Shouldn't
     Traveller be about space travel, interstellar trade, high technology,
     aliens and vast star spanning empires (hey, sounds like CT to me ;-))?

     I realise that much of this has been said by others.  I'm merely
     putting my slant on things and hopefully provoking more discussion
     (and maybe influencing MM's thinking ;-)).

     Cheers,
     Liam

     Liam_McCauley@QSP.co.uk

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 00:52:41 +1100 (EST)
From: Phillip McGregor <aspqrz@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM, xboat@MPGN.COM
Subject: Space Opera
Message-ID: <199601161352.AAA07520@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>

Hi,

What can I say but, yes, guilty as charged. SO wasn't perfect, but we tried
to do some of the things that Traveller didn't allow for ... and if we'd
been luckier in our publisher we might still have been around. Of course,
we'd have had to fix up many of the sort of errors I'm complaining about
in Traveller! Like I said, we weren't perfect, but I'm glad that people
still remember it fondly!

Phil McGregor



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

Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 08:44:44 -0800
From: Douglas Berry <dberry@mailhost.hooked.net>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: TRAVELLER digest 547
Message-ID: <199601161644.IAA15432@worm.hooked.net>

On Mon, 15 Jan 1996 traveller@mpgn.com said:

>Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 16:08:32 -0600 (CST)
>From: James Kiley <tenzil@io.com>
>To: Traveller ML <traveller@MPGN.COM>
>Subject: Military Structure
>Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.91.960111160157.1833C-100000@pentagon.io.com>
>
>In any case, there's a lot of organizational charts in Striker II for
various
>military outfits.  Am I wrong in thinking that GDW should have included a
key
>to the charts, so we could figure out which symbol represents infantry,
which
>armor, etc?  And perhaps what the dots mean, and the underlines?  I'd love
if
>someone knowledgeable could email me and let me know what the symbols
mean, or
>point me to a good Web site or other free resource for this sort of thing.


The Regency Combat Vehicle Guide includes this chart, along with FF&S stats
for the vehicles presented in Striker II.  Briefly,  the crossed lines
through the box are infantry, an oval in the box is armor, a single dot in
the box is artillery, a capital E turned on its side are engineers.  A line
under the box indicates the unit is equipped with contra-grav vehicles.

Unit sizes are on top of the box.  One dot: squad, two dots: section (often
ommited), three dots: platoon, one line: company, two lines: battalion,
three lines: regiment, one x: brigade, two x: division, three x: corps,
four x: army.


>Secondly, suggestions as to where I could find out what rank officer
typically
>commands what size unit and/or ship would also be greatly appreciated.
This
>seems like a glaring omission, especially in that it wasn't mentioned in
>Striker II.  Am I missing something?

It wasn't there, but here are the basics, based on U.S. Army pattern.  A
squad is usually led by a Staff Sergeant (E-6), a platoon by a Lieutenant
(O-1 or 2) assited by a Sergeant 1st Class (E-7), a company is commanded by
a Captain (O-3) assisted by an XO (O-2) and a First Sergeant (E-8).  All
higher units have an Executive officer of one grade lower and a Sergeant
Major (E-9) with them.  Battalion: Lt. Colonel, Regiment: Colonel,
Brigade: Colonel or Brigader General,  Division:  Major General (2 star),
Corps: Lt. General (3 star),  Army: General (4 star).

Note that the term "Army" as used above does not refer to the entire force
of men under arms.  It is a distinct organization inside the larger U.S.
Army.

Hope this helps, if you have more questions, feel free to email me..




--
Douglas E. Berry - dberry@hooked.net
The "4518th Regiment Homepage"!
Coming just as soon as I figure out html

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 549
***************************
