TRAVELLER Digest 553

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Jerry Vs. Wil: The "Real Traveller" Debacle. by Charles Collin <charles@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca>
  2) Re: 3D space in Traveller. by Charles Collin <charles@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca>
  3) Advertising the New Traveller by A.S.Lilly@bnr.co.uk (Andy Lilly)
  4) Re: Selling the New Traveller by A.S.Lilly@bnr.co.uk (Andy Lilly)
  5) Striker II by Joni M Virolainen <jonimv@evitech.fi>
  6) by tc@library.solent.ac.uk (Timothy Collinson)
  7) FFS and Trav by Julian Love <julian.love@st-johns.oxford.ac.uk>
  8) New Rules System...? by "M.A. Trickett" <mat3@leicester.ac.uk>
  9) traveller by Benjy Barton <Benjy@iap.net.au>
 10) Re: 3D space in Traveller. by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
 11) Re: traveller by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
 12) Non-RC Campaigns in TNE by jwbrewer@ucsd.edu (James W Brewer)
 13) GDW is dead?  Long Live GDW! by odysseus@inetnebr.com (Jeff Kazmierski)
 14) Re: Ideas by Michael.Barry@FINANCE.ausgovfinance.telememo.au
 15) OmniTraveller? by Charles Collin <charles@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca>

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 03:08:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Collin <charles@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Jerry Vs. Wil: The "Real Traveller" Debacle.
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960118024431.12887B-100000@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca>

Hi All. In the last mailing, Jerry let Wil have it for bashing TNE in
favor of "real Traveller".  While I think that Wil's wording was a bit
extreme, I have to agree with him that CT and MT are the "real" Traveller
systems.  Call me a stodgy traditionalist, but TNE always struck me as a
desperate attempt by GDW to get on the bandwagon of flashy RPG's with a
dark-chic background.  I don't think the TNE system is all that bad,
thought the combat system is a little cumbersome, but I think the complete
change in rules systems was a mistake that scared off a lot of old
Traveller players.  Almost everyone who played CT moved on to MT (in my
experience anyways), and those that didn't were (speculating here) scared
off by the 10 typos per page.  On the other hand, many people playing MT
did not move on to TNE (I'm one, and there are lots more on the sister
mailing list). The main reason being that TNE was not an extension of
the previous games, but a completely different game system with a loosely
related background.  I think going back to the MT system would be a good
move so long as it is fixed up a bit and the rule book is *thouroughly*
proof-read.

Having said this, I have to agree with Jerry that the important thing is
to keep Traveller alive, in whatever form.  People should be prepared to
accept the fact that no one is going to get exactly what they want. Also,
Marc Miller seems to have his mind set on going back to a CT/MT variant of
some sort, so we are to some degree arguing a moot point here, no?  I
realize that YARS tries one's patience, but I for one am prepared to give
the game one more chance (if this doesn't work out, I'm definately going
over to GURPS!  :-).

Yours Diplomatically,
Charles.

<0>         "The mind is stranger than it can imagine."<0>
<0> Charles Collin (charles@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca), <0>
<0> Psychology Department, McGill University.  <0>
<0> 1205 Dr. Penfield, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3A 1B1.  <0>



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

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 03:20:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Collin <charles@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: 3D space in Traveller.
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960118030913.12887C-100000@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca>

Alex Holt suggested 3D space in Traveller.  I like this idea, but I think
there are cons as well as pros.  For one thing, it would make all
previous maps and subsector data useless, thus junking a large part of
the background that makes Trav such a great game.  It might even have
some nasty effects on the history of Known space.

Having said that, I've always wanted a 3D Traveller universe.  It's not at
all hard to do.  You keep hex maps, but have subsectors by 10 x 10 x 5
parsecs.  Each world symbol has a number in it indicating its Z
coordinate, and you figure out distances with pythagoras (or include a
little 6x6 table for the math challenged).  Because the Z
dimension is relatively thin, you cut down on overlapping star-systems.
Where there are two systems "on top" of one-another, you just split up
the hex.

3D space combat is a much more complicated matter, but I've come up with
a system which is not TOO cumbersome (I don't think there's any way to
make it really simple).

Charles.

<0>         "The mind is stranger than it can imagine."<0>
<0> Charles Collin (charles@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca), <0>
<0> Psychology Department, McGill University.  <0>
<0> 1205 Dr. Penfield, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3A 1B1.  <0>



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

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 09:11:48 +0000
From: A.S.Lilly@bnr.co.uk (Andy Lilly)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Advertising the New Traveller
Message-ID: <199601180916.EAA10900@Mithril.MPGN.COM>

In TML 552, John Muir Macpherson <muirmac@uclink.berkeley.edu> says:

>Before we all get too excited about the number of 400 page
>sourcebooks MM is going to be able to produce, let me just point out that
>he still has to operate under the same business and financial limitations
>that GDW did.  In fact, he likely has even fewer resources available to
>him for promoting Traveller than GDW.  What made GDW fail was not that
>people like us weren't buying their products, but that they weren't
>getting any _new_ customers.

Yup. I can't judge the real figures for this sort of thing, but I think a
company that stops supporting demo teams, conventions, etc. is likely to
lose some (if not a lot) of new trade.

To explain further, BITS (British Isles Traveller Support) is, to my
knowledge, the only organisation of any size in the UK (and Ireland :-) )
which is dedicated to keeping Traveller alive. BITS organised its first
small event (just a couple of gaming tables at Recon 95) in December last
year, and despite fog keeping many people away, we managed to encourage a
few passers-by to join in and by the end of the session they were
sufficiently enthused that they were going to go back to their own RPG clubs
to try to get other people to play Traveller.

Now that's one sure-fire way of getting customers. However, getting support
for such activities from GDW or anyone else is difficult.

Just to show that I "walk the talk", BITS is intending to run a TOURNAMENT
event at Euro Gen Con in September 1996 (hope all the UK members are
listening in!) and I'm in contact with Marc Miller to see if he can help us
to advertise whatever new products he's got out by then. Hopefully we'll
also be attending other events in the meantime. That all takes a lot of
work, and at the moment it's being done purely by myself and a few core
die-hards within BITS for the love of it. If we were sponsored in some way
and had Traveller stock to sell at events, I can guarantee the sales of
Traveller in the UK would go UP!

>Who could be persuaded to play Trav?  For that matter, who
>plays and spends money on the successful RPGs out there?  It is largely
>the high school/college crowd, I suspect.

An important reason for having a demo' team to attend RPG events,
particularly ones at Universities and colleges - even schools.

Enough blithering.

Andy Lilly
Coordinating BITS (British Isles Traveller Support)


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

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 09:11:47 +0000
From: A.S.Lilly@bnr.co.uk (Andy Lilly)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Selling the New Traveller
Message-ID: <199601180916.EAA10905@Mithril.MPGN.COM>

In TML 550, Susan Marie Shock <34ZBTXQ@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> pointed out:

>...To tell you the truth, what seemed
>to hurt TNE was MegaTraveller! many of the game shop owners I talked to (about
>20; admittedly a limited sample) were leery of stocking it because of the SLOW
>sales they experienced on MT. Once we explained that they were different games,
>they started carrying it. Overall, it seemed that TNE's sales weren't bad, just
>not good enough...

That's an absolutely CRITICAL point and I hope MARC MILLER is listening. A
major reason (so far as I'm aware) that MT didn't sell well was because from
the start, a lot of people got the (accurate) impression that the rule books
would have had less errata and typos in them if a blindfolded illiterate
wombat had typed them in. If that happens, people don't buy - they hang
around waiting for the next printing to see if the bugs have gone away. And
they look at any new publication with a wary eye... that might not be so
crippling for a supplement but for the main rules books of a 'new' (compared
to CT) game, YOU CAN'T AFFORD SUCH BAD QUALITY CONTROL.

Apologies if anyone connected with the original books is listening in... but
then as is pointed out in TML551 by anwfh@acad2.alaska.edu (William F.
Hostman), the TNE rules weren't bug-free either.

This time, GET IT RIGHT FIRST TIME.

Needless to say I have already humbly offered my writing and proof-reading
services to Marc... :-)

Andy Lilly
Coordinating BITS (British Isles Traveller Support)


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

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 12:38:08 +0200 (EET)
From: Joni M Virolainen <jonimv@evitech.fi>
To: Traveller Mailing List <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Striker II
Message-ID: <Pine.HPP.3.91.960118123628.15257A-100000@evitech.evitech.fi>

I'd like to know how well Striker II can be used with normal role playing
system. And also how well it can be used as a 'large' scale guerrila warfare?

"I'll be bag"
-Arnie the Alligator

Joni Virolainen
jonimv@evitech.fi



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

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 96 11:42:30 GMT
From: tc@library.solent.ac.uk (Timothy Collinson)
Message-ID: <9601181142.AA08361@library.solent.ac.uk>

Page 1
~EXTERNALREPLIED  : traveller@mpgn.com
FROM : tc
cc : traveller@mpgn.com
Subject: Abject terror

>TRAVELLER Digest 551

>The mechanics have only those few areas grafted in that
>define traveller and have been unchanged since CT:
>Worlds, Trade, and Snimal Encounters.

Oh no!  Not the fearsome Snimal encounter.  (Has anyone
worked out how to pacify an angry Snimal?)

tc

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 11:52:11 +0000 (GMT)
From: Julian Love <julian.love@st-johns.oxford.ac.uk>
To: traveller mailing list <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: FFS and Trav
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.960118114254.18638A-100000@sable.ox.ac.uk>



Personally I think FFS is great - I love tinkering around with design
rules, and the flexibility of FFS is amazing. I agree that it could have
done with some pre-designed plug-in units (MFD's, sensor suites etc), but
being able to design wepons, vehicles, and starships in such detail is
something that previous versions of traveller lacked.

As for settings, while I love the extensive and rich history of the Trav
universe, it is very daunting to new players (hence the adoption of the
RC in TNE I imagine). Also, I personally prefer smaller but more detailed
and varied universes. Its very easy when your players are roaming across
a sector or two for them to get into the "let's go to Widget in 0723, its
high pop AND TLC!" - in other words, you soon fall into the trap of not
looking beyond the UPPs.

My favourite alternate setting would be a Traveller:2300 one. I like the
idea of a TL11-12 setting, where frontiers are real and haven't EVER been
explored before, with the various nations  of earth all having their own
agenda. It makes the universe a far more exciting and dynamic place than
the star-spanning empire of CT and MT.

Anyway, that's what I think :)

Jules.

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

Date:          Thu, 18 Jan 1996 14:01:41 +0100 (BST)
From: "M.A. Trickett" <mat3@leicester.ac.uk>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: New Rules System...?
Message-ID: <1C389A70514@daisy.le.ac.uk>

Okay, I've had it... after all the stuff flying around about new
rules systems, everyone's pet hates being brought to the fore, etc.,
I thought I might as well add some more to that.  Personally, I
prefer the TNE system.  I like it, in fact.  Admittedly, I missed out
on the pleasures (?) of the "three little black books" (CT) and came
into Traveller with MT so I can't speak with the authority of some
people but...

Imagine the scene, if you will.  After buying the boxed set of
MegaTraveller the new player (possibly GM) sits down after reading
the rules to create a *new* character.  It's one of his favourite
past-times.  Off we go... roll, roll, clatter, clatter.  Hmmm - the
scouting career looks fun let's go for that.  More rolling and
clattering in abundance.  Yes!  He's been commission... oohh I can
feel his personality and history coming together now.  What a lucky
dice roll - he's been promoted.  Wow, what a history.  He's dead.
HE'S DEAD?  Is it just me or is slightly off to kill characters in
generation?

TNE is, in my rather humble opinion, far superior to MT in many
aspects.  Task Resolution springs to mind... easy, reliable and
flexible.  Combing skill and attributes together creates more
believable characters - it is possible to have characters with a
great deal of ability (i.e., high attribute) and with very little
practical experience (i.e., low skill rating).  Not possible with the
old task system.  I know... I had to suffer through combat task rolls
in "2300AD: Man's Battle for the Stars."  Urgh, was that a horror.

If anyone can send me further information on CT and how MT is
superior then feel free... there are aspects of TNE that I would
rather not keep (the mistakes, for one) but others that I would (the
character generation! ;-)

>From what I can gather the main problem is with the TNE era itself.
So what's the problem?  Just stick it back into the "classic era".
Bring out some (bug free) supplements about mercantile acitivity,
adventure ideas, etc.  Also, if memory serves, I can remember some
people having a gripe about the Rebellion when it occurred.

Remember... every game is playable.  Even WW stuff if you can forget
about that awful system.  One thing that I would change is the
technology... Traveller was created in 1970's and it just seems to be
using technologies that were envisaged then.  In a reprint/aditional
information, why not put in some of the more current theories?

Hope I don't get flamed too much.

-- MARK T.

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 22:37:41 +0800
From: Benjy Barton <Benjy@iap.net.au>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: traveller
Message-ID: <30FE5B35.23B7@iap.net.au>

Blair A. Monroe wrote.

I agree with you.  In general the TNE rules are better written and have
benefited from years of "playtesting" through CT and MT.  I know some people
feel that TNE is little more than a military game, but it does not have to be
that way.  The "crawling your way out of the dark ages" setting will tend to
lend itself to more military campaigns and TNE has a lot of work invested
into those type of rules and suggestions, but there is no reason that a TNE
game has to concentrate there.  The rules are just as capable of handling
non-military role-playing and are in many ways simpler than the earlier
systems.  A lot of it depends on what the GM and his players want in their
game.

I Think you are right its all up to the GM. I like making weapons and starships 
and if i find a
task to complex i make a spreadsheet to help me , I dont whine about the lack 
of calculator or
how the old rules were simpler, thay were also less flexable.  Who remembers in 
CT how a small
fighter can damage a ship 1000 times its size. In MT you could build fleet that 
could not be hurt
except by meson Spinal Mounts making Figther and escorts useless. And how about 
Nuclear Damper in
 CT where it puts a shield about your ship that stops nuclear explosions within 
it radius,
a radius that was an entire hex.
  My point is this the combat system in TNE works, and no system is ever 
perfect but, with TNE
atleast you know rules are easy and not everybody is going to be a retired 
Admiral.
--
        It's Better to Burn out,then to Fade away!!!!
Highlander

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 08:53:48 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: 3D space in Traveller.
Message-ID: <9601181553.AA19629@Rt66.com>


> Alex Holt suggested 3D space in Traveller.  I like this idea, but I think
> there are cons as well as pros.  For one thing, it would make all
> previous maps and subsector data useless, thus junking a large part of
> the background that makes Trav such a great game.  It might even have
> some nasty effects on the history of Known space.

Another possibility is to just say (as canon) that the subsector maps
represent a map of jumpspace, not normal space.  In normal space, the
star systems are in 3d, but they can just as well be represented as flat
in Jspace.  The only problem with the canon are that the multi-subsector
maps show it superimposed on a galactic map.

-Merrick

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 09:12:11 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: traveller
Message-ID: <9601181612.AA21194@Rt66.com>

>I Think you are right its all up to the GM. I like making weapons and 
starships and if i find a
> task to complex i make a spreadsheet to help me , I dont whine about the lack 
of calculator or
>how the old rules were simpler, thay were also less flexable.  Who remembers 
in CT how a small
>fighter can damage a ship 1000 times its size. In MT you could build fleet 
that could not be hurt
>except by meson Spinal Mounts making Figther and escorts useless. And how 
about Nuclear Damper in
> CT where it puts a shield about your ship that stops nuclear explosions 
within it radius,
> a radius that was an entire hex.

I'd have to argue the comments about HG.  Fighters have to be able to
damage ships much larger than they are, or the arms race that resulted
in them never would have happened.  Fighters and escorts were only
useful to the extent that they could fire large factor missile attacks
at the big boys, it is true.  But how does this really change in BL/BR?
In BL fighters can't hurt big ships, in BR they can (with the same exact
missiles!)---in fact an unopposed fighter can destroy a Tigress in BR
(but not in BL).  With respect to spinal mounts, they are the major
weapons in BL/BR even though they shouldn't be given the laser design
rules in FFS---a lack of playtesting (which I guess is good since
otherwise they would have ditched all the non-laser directed energy
weapons :-)

As for dampers, they weren't provided, but they were promised, so the
lack of them in FFS (the mention that they would be coming was in BL)
was an oversight, not an intentional change in the history.  Also, in CT
there wasn't really a hex to put your ship in.  Book 2 doesn't mention
dampers that I recall, and HG doesn't mention the range of a damper
screen.  I always assumed it was just a little farther out than range of
proximity detonation range for a nuke (on the order of 10s of
kilometers, I would think---maybe a couple hundred).

-Merrick

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 13:05:33 -0800
From: jwbrewer@ucsd.edu (James W Brewer)
To: Traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Non-RC Campaigns in TNE
Message-ID: <199601182105.NAA11677@mail.ucsd.edu>

          I am running a group based in the Empire of  Solee.  The player
characters are loyal members
     of Her Brillant Majesty's Exploratory Service.  Much of what they have
been doing has little to
     do with combat as they conduct surveys, recontact missons, and
bootstrap missions.  However,
     the Empire is in direct oposition the Reformation Coalition.  To them
the Space Vikings are the
     bad guys, destroying, stealing, and murdering their way down the star
lanes, while the Empire
     seeks to restore what was lost.  In our most recent game session I
rolled an encounter result and
     then rolled a large vessel.  Earlier they had found a derelict RCS
vessel and arranged for a
     Imperial Navy salvage ship (a modified X-boat Tender ) to recover it.
So the RCS Thunderchild
    Jumps into the system and promptly attacks the tender (to move the
player on to a new area).
    The player acting as the commander of their modified Corbra class
courier quickly talks the
    rest into instead attacking the clipper.  After they role played the
start of the combat we shifted
    to Brilliant Lances for the actual combat.  They disabled and captured
the Thunderchild!  I had
    allowed the player to develop a chacter with Ships Tactics 4 (He did
come up a reasonable
    career to earn it) and he came up with a great idea in sending the ships
launch well ahead to locate the     enemy  and distract them which allowed
his ship to move into range and hit them with a full missile
    spread destroying the power plant and fire control.  After giving them
some nice medals I'll have to find
    some place to send them now.  The Guilded Lilly supplement sounds far
enough away.  So it is possible
    in TNE to satisfiy players who liked the old setting and don' t like the RC.




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

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 19:36:47 -0500
From: odysseus@inetnebr.com (Jeff Kazmierski)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: GDW is dead?  Long Live GDW!
Message-ID: <199601190139.TAA06310@falcon.inetnebr.com>

Excuse me?  I seem to have been in Korea for a year.  What's this I keep
hearing about GDW going under?

Not that it'll change my choice of SFRPGs, of course.  I'm just curious
(and a bit frightened).


-odysseus@inetnebr.com



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

Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 10:33:43 +1000
From: Michael.Barry@FINANCE.ausgovfinance.telememo.au
To: traveller@MPGN.COM (Non Receipt Notification Requested)
Subject: Re: Ideas
Message-ID: <423310190196*/G=Michael/S=Barry/O=FINANCE/PRMD=AUSGOVFINANCE/ADMD=T
ELEMEMO/C=AU/@MHS>

     This message registers my vote for a 3D map system for Traveller: The Next
     Generation (oops!).

     Much as I love the wall map I photocopied-and-pasted from the Atlas of the
     Imperium about ten years ago - has anybody thought of a way of making a 3D
     map that is roughly consistent with existing Traveller maps and perhaps
     also with modern astronomy?

     Before all the closet RPG astrophysicists decloak their lurking devices and
     fire a full spread of mathematical formulae, please remember that I did say
     'roughly'...

     MB 19/1

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

Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 00:55:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Collin <charles@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca>
To: Marc Miller <FarFuture@aol.com>
Subject: OmniTraveller?
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960118184014.19829B-100000@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca>

Hi Mr. Miller.  The subject line is just my little suggestion as to a
name for the new Traveller rules set you are planning.  It captures the idea
that the rules will be generic and cover many historical eras (BTW, that
is an AWESOME idea).

I, like most Traveller fans, have a million ideas regarding the
4th generation of Traveller.  I've already sent you one letter, and
here's another.  This one's quite lengthy I'm afraid, but you _did_ say you
wanted lots of feedback :-).

First, some general policy opinions.  I completely agree with you
about returning to the CT/MT systems (with some tweaking and adjusting, of
course), and I also agree that the most important thing of all is to make
the rules simple and accessible.  I'm the first to criticize rules
systems which pander to the lowest common denominator, but the reality is
that simpler systems do better in terms of sales.  Systems such as White
Wolf's Storyteller line and SJ Games GURPS attract a lot of fans because they
are easy to get into and allow one to concentrate on roleplaying.  The
original Traveller was similarly easy to understand, and the increased
complexity of later systems was a mistake, in my opinion.

I think the look and feel of the new rules set is important.
Another typo-ridden set of books would be unforgiveable.  I suggest that
there be less fancy layout work and more emphasis on clear and concise
rules which have been thouroughly tested and proof-read.  This is not to
say that the rules set should be devoid of artwork, I think art is
extremely important in today's gaming market.  But a large percentage of
the artistic resources for the project should be aimed at a really, really
good cover and some full-page works inside (i.e., instead of lots of in-line
images and so on).  And care should be taken to make things readable by
using good serif fonts and well laid-out tables.

In terms of the variety of products you suggested, I think that
they are mostly great ideas.  However, I personally detest collector card
games, so I would vote against that particular concept.  Though it might
potentially bring a lot of money, I don't think such a game would work for
Traveller (mind you, I'm admittedly biased).  The T-shirts and posters are
great PR (I would wear mine with pride!), and the novels/comics/graphic
novels would attract new players as well as fleshing out the feel of the
game for old players.  But I think the single most important thing you've
mentioned in terms of new products are the computerized play aids.
Traveller is a high tech game, and it should have high tech support.  If
it is economically non-viable to include diskettes or CDs with the game
("Be sure to specify Mac or PC when ordering your copy of OmniTraveller"),
then at least include a list of web resources somewhere and allow
downloads of things like planet, system, character, and equipment design
programs. I'm sure you could find people on the TML and XTML mailing lists
who would program these as shareware (in fact, some good programs are
already available as you probably know, and would only need minor
adjustments to fit in with the new rules). The CD-ROM would be even better
than this, of course, but I wonder if that's not pie in the sky at this
point.

Now on to more specific suggestions...


CHARACTER GENERATION

In terms of a character generation system, I like the advanced
systems presented in MT.  I would like to see such advanced systems
provided for more of the non-military careers, though.  I would also like
to see characters get "hobby" skills as they do in TNE.  This allows one
to flesh out the character without sacrificing its viability.  I would
also like to see a set of rolls for generating background aspects of the
character such as number of family members and salient life events.
Cyberpunk and Robotech both have interesting examples of this.  Of course,
such a system would only be a springboard and players would be free to
generate their backgrounds without resorting to rolls.  It would also be a
good idea to include (perhaps as a sidebar) a quickie generation system in
which characters are designed using points (a la Traveller:2300).  This
allows faster character creation for "beer and pretzels" nights and
satisfies the subsection of the gaming public who think that characters
should be designed instead of rolled.  It also makes it quicker and easier
to introduce new players to the game (on this note, there should be a set
of pre-generated characters included for quick start purposes).  Any
character creation system should be devoid of survival rolls, which I
think were a bad idea in the first place (sorry), and should have a method
for "upping" hopeless characters (like in TNE).
In addition to the character abilities Traveller has traditionally
had, I would like to see something along the lines of "Alertness" and
"Appearance" characteristics.  The latter is less important than the
former, but I think some kind of basic roll for noticing things is
required in any RPG.


TASK SYSTEM

I like the basic idea of the MT task system, though I think it
would be best to go back to number targets instead of the "simple,
average, difficult..." concept (not sure why, that just always stuck in my
craw).  The task system should have provisions for extreme successes and
failures, and also for "unknown results" (I don't particularly like MT's way
of dealing with either of these).
The way I deal out extreme results is this:  If the player rolls
doubles, he rolls the task again.  If the new roll yields the same result
as the old roll (i.e., they are both successes or both failures), then the
result becomes extreme.  This works quite well because it makes it
unlikely for someone who needs a 12+ to get an extreme success (he needs
to roll rolls of 12+ in a row to get it), but still allows a slim
possibility.  The chance of extreme success goes up proportionally with
one's chance of basic success, but never gets exceedingly high (and the
same is true of extreme failure).  Even a player needing only a 3+ to
succeed only has about a 15% chance of extreme success.  Another advantage
is that even a character needing only 3+ to accomplish something has a
minute chance of screwing up completely.
Because of the even way doubles are distributed through the distribution of
possible dice rolls, one's chances of rolling them are always roughly
proportional to one's chances of success and failure.  That is, roughly
1/6th of one's successful rolls will be doubles, no matter what the
target is (and this is also true of failures).
In terms of "unknown result" tasks, I generally do this:  After
the player has made his roll, the Referee rolls two dice secretly, adding
the first to the player's roll and subtracting the second.  Thus, the
player has a ballpark idea of what his "real" roll was, but can't be sure.
For example, if he rolled a success, then he _thinks_ he's fixed the
air-raft successfully, but he might have missed something.  If his roll
was a borderline success then he's going to be even more uncertain of his
fix.  A situation can even arise where the character rolls an apparent
failure but in fact succeeds:
Tech: "I can't figure out what's wrong with this thing, I've
taken it apart and put it back together, and I can't seem to find
the problem."
Pilot (pressing ignition switch): "Um, I don't know what you did,
but it seems to be working fine."
Tech (watching as air-raft lifts off): "Damn, I hate it when that
happens!  You never do figure out what you did right!"
(I've personally experienced this many times while programming.)

 This system also allows for differing degrees of uncertainty in task
resolution:  for slightly uncertain tasks, the referee rolls half dice
(i.e. +1d3 and -1d3).  For highly uncertain tasks, he rolls +2d6 and -2d6,
making the player's roll only  a very rough estimate of the "true" roll.
Note that if the player's roll is an extreme success or
failure, there is no uncertainty roll as such results are considered
"obvious".  I've found that this rule is the best way to combine the
above ideas, anything else gets clumsy.
I like the way MT allows abilities to affect tasks, but I think
the DM for an ability should be 1/3 rounded down instead of 1/5.  This is
a minor point, but I like the way this turns out:

Stat ValueDescriptionDM

1-2very poor+0
3-5poor+1
6-8average+2
9-11good+3
12-14excellent+4
15superior+5

The major advantage here is that ability DM's come out as being a very
similar scale to skill levels.  Of course, task targets have to be set a
little higher (1 higher than MT works for me) because an average stat
yields a +2 DM, but this is a minor detail.


PERSONAL COMBAT

Again, I like the MT system in general, but would like to see
some adjustments.  My only request is that whatever combat system is
used, have armor subtract from damage, not from chance to hit.  The later
idea is an import from the era of basic D&D and I think it is horribly
unrealistic.
A modular combat system would be a good idea.  Start with
something extremely simple and then allow optional rules for more realism.
In a non-military campaign, people should be able to resolve combats in 5
minutes, while mercenary players should be allowed to cram in as many
tactical options and gory details as desired.  If a CT type system is
being used, tables should be provided as in Snapshot so that players don't
have to keep track of too many DMs.  In general, efforts should be made
to reduce the number of DMs which have to be dealt with.


SPACE COMBAT

Again, a modular system would be best.  Perhaps start with an
abstract system similar to High Guard for really quick resolution of space
combat (no need to pull out the hex maps and miniatures), and then add in
a map-based system as an "advanced" version.  I have a suggestion for
movement on a hex grid which roughly simulates vector based motion (I
think the Brilliant Lances system is okay, but this is better, in my
humble opinion).  It uses 12 directions in the same way as Brilliant
Lances (i.e., hex sides and vertices).  A given ship starts each turn with
one of the 12 directions and a speed in hexes.  The movement goes like
this.

1. Initial Vector:  Ship moves, in the direction it is facing, a number of
hexes equal to its speed (zig-zagging if it is moving through a hex
vertex).  A marker is left behind in the hex it started out in.

2. Adjusting Vector:  The ship may move from its new location to any hex
within n hexes, where n is G's of thrust available.

3. Calculate New Vector:  Count the number of hexes between the ship's
final location and the counter marking its initial location.  That is the
ship's new speed.  The ship's new direction is determined by tracing a
line from the center of its initial hex through its present hex.  If
there is some ambiguity as to which direction the ship should be
going in, the player moving the ship simply decides between the two options.

I've found this system is quick and gives a nice approximation of vector
movement.  It is also a little more intuitive than Brilliant Lances.  If
turns are made to be 10000^.5 seconds long (about 317s or 5
minutes), then hexes can be 1000 kms across, allowing for large planetary
templates with rings of hexes around the outside representing the gravity
well.  The ring goes out to whatever distance the .5g limit is.
Essentially, one is "rounding up" gravitational effects.  I realize this
is a bit unrealistic, but it sure is fun!  To add gravity to the above
system, you simply put in a fourth step whereby ships whose vectors pass
through gravity-well hexes are moved 1 hex towards the planet center.
This necessitates the calculation of a second "new vector".  It's like
Book 2 with hexes.
In terms of combat damage, I would like to see a system which is
a little more "deadly" than High Guard or Book 2.  A good way to do this
would be to make ships more vulnerable the more hits they take (e.g., the
hull is weakened).  This would help to make combats shorter so that they
could be incorporated into a gaming session without dominating it. Long
space combat sequences lead to boredom for players whose characters are
not pilots or gunners.
That brings me to another suggestion.  I'd like to see a piloting
roll or better yet some sort of piloting decisions worked into the combat
system (perhaps as an optional advanced rule).  This would give pilots
some actual input into the outcome of space combats (something lacking in
Book 2 and High Guard).
As a sidebar in the ship combat section of the rules, there should
be a brief explanation of the physics of space combat.  Another sidebar
should describe the feel of Traveller space combat:  Less like dog-fights,
more like submarine combat.  Suggest Hunt for Red October and Crimson
Tide as inspirations for the sensor-based techno-warfare feel of it.


MASS COMBAT SYSTEMS.

No really specific suggestions here, I'd just like to see them
included.  Once again, nothing complex, just a simple abstract system for
determining small fleet-level and platoon-level encounters.


DESIGN SYSTEM

I hate to say it, but I'm not sure this should be included in the
basic rules.  Don't get me wrong, I like designing stuff, but I don't
think it's the kind of thing most roleplayers are into, especially when
they are just starting out with a game.  I think the design system should
be left for a second book.  Many people on the mailing lists have
suggested something along the lines of FF&S "Lite".  I think that's the
way to go.  Have a separate book with a design system somewhere between
FF&S and High Guard in terms of complexity, and include a lot of
pre-designed equipment and "standard option packages".


WORLD GENERATION

There have been a lot of calls for the world generation systems
to be adjusted so that vacc worlds will tend to have lower populations
and so that worlds will generally come out to be more "reasonable". I
completely disagree with this.  I think one of the great things about
being a Traveller referee is having to come up with explanations for
apparently illogical UWP's.  There is a nice little article on this at

http://www2.hb.se/sexet/goeran/twp/rules/unusualU.htm

on Goran's Traveller web page (one you should definately mention
somewhere in the rule book, it's really good. Joe Heck's page is another
must).

I like the fleshing out provided by DGP's rules (e.g. Grand Survey
and World Tamer's...), but if there is to be a complete Scouts-like star
system generation system, it should be simplified or computer-supported.
I've made a few star systems with Scouts, and I've got it down to the
point where it only takes me on the order of 2.5 hours to make a small
system. That's way too long.
There has been a lot of debate lately on the e-mail lists
regarding tech level designations.  I think this is just the thread of
the week and you shouldn't be overly concerned with changing this.  Of
course, that's just my opinion as I've never had any problem with the TL
designations.


CONVERTING BETWEEN SYSTEMS

One thing which is a must for any new Traveller rules system is
the ability to convert between the previous incarnations.  A system
for doing this should be included in an appendix.  This will allow
players to access the wealth of material floating around out there from
CT, MT and TNE.  The appendix should also allow conversion to and from
GURPS.  This will bring in new players who, while they will continue to
use the GURPS rule set, will buy OmniTraveller (or whatever it ends being
called) supplements and other supplies.  It works for White Wolf and
their Storyteller line.  People buy the GURPS: Vampire basic rule book,
but then go out and buy all the Clan sourcebooks, adventures, and other
things.

Well, that's it from me.  I hope my "War and Peace" didn't put
you to sleep :-).

Charles.


<0>         "The mind is stranger than it can imagine."<0>
<0> Charles Collin (charles@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca), <0>
<0> Psychology Department, McGill University.  <0>
<0> 1205 Dr. Penfield, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3A 1B1.  <0>


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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 553
***************************
