TRAVELLER Digest 559

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: "Real Traveller" and GDW's past history
by "Christopher Weuve" <caw@intercon.com>
  2) by traveller@MPGN.COM
  3) Re: DGP & TRAVELLER!!! by ereddoch@amaranth.com (Eris Reddoch)
  4) by traveller@MPGN.COM
  5) Traveller's future by "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
  6) Re: Traveller Rules (Was Re:Yars) by "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
  7) Re: Rules & Tl stuff by "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
  8) by traveller@MPGN.COM
  9) by traveller@MPGN.COM
 10) by traveller@MPGN.COM

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 15:40:46 -0500
From: "Christopher Weuve" <caw@intercon.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: "Real Traveller" and GDW's past history
Message-ID: <9601201540.AA46749@caw.intercon.com>

William F. Hostman said:
> In the mid-80's, GDW Released Traveller 2300, a game supposedly
> set 3300 years before the CT/MT games primary timelines. As such, it
> was extremely criticized. It was also "divorced" from traveller
> quickly, as it's mechanics of spaceflight were quite different, and
> then married to T:2K (which was still in its non-house system days)
> and renamed 2300AD. T:2K is not a bad system. Nor, for overall
> system factors, is TNE. It is not, however, an outgrowth of the system
> for CT/MT, where 2300AD was (albeit a huge jump).

I don't think this is even close to accurate.  Here is story as I see it,
based on the materials issued by GDW and answers from GDW staff:

1) There was no "divorce", as Traveller:2300 was _never_ part of the CT/MT
timeline.  GDW decided to use the term Traveller for name recognition
purposes, similar to the way Dodge recycled the old "Charger" name for a
brand-new car design in the 1980s.  Traveller was thought to have run its
course [or they wanted to kill it, take your pick], and GDW wanted to do a
hard science RPG set a little closer to home.

2) The timeline for T:2300 was married to T2k from the very beginning.  Either
in the T:2300 rulebook or Challenge (since I am at work I can't check) a GDW
rep (Miller, I think) explained that the T:2300 game backgound was generated
one Saturday by starting with the T2k background and gaming it out 300 years
in the future.  [This is why the French were the dominant power -- the French
player "won".]  At one point GDW was giving away sets of the rules for this
game at conventions.  As of a few years ago, they still had the handmade map
of the world in a corner of their warehouse, but no longer any copies of the
rules.

3) T:2300 had a lot of problems, not the least of which was that people
thought it was supposed to be part of the classic Traveller universe.  They
issued a second edition with a new name (2300AD) and heavily reworked
mechanics. 2300AD also included supplementary materials originally presented
in Challenge.


> But as for the look and feel of TNE, T:2K, DC, et al, I never liked
> the look of the books, nor the feel of the settings.

My main problem with the look of the TNE books is the fake computer screens --
they take up two much space which would have been better used presenting more
info.  I also thought the artwork was not as strong as some of the art in the
CT/MT/DGP/2300 days, at least in part due to the departure of Tom Peters for
the computer gaming industry.  (Tom's artwork, for example, includes the
drawing of the Fiery class escort in MegaTraveller Journal.)

My main problem with the feel of the TNE setting was the way Virus was
descibed [_not_ the concept of Virus itself].  This problem also extends to a
lot of the criticism I have heard regarding Virus.  The game takes place
several thousand years in the future, yet the computers work like our
computers (only better), and Virus and the sentient chips were explained in
present day terms.

Everytime I hear a programmer say Virus is impossible, I shudder -- as a
computer professional with ten years experience and an interest in the history
of computer science, I flashback to the founder of DEC saying there is no
market for personal computers or Bill Gates saying no one will ever need more
that 640k.  The criticism that Virus is impossible is as temporally-limited as
saying that Virus is impossible because it doesn't use punch cards.

I would have been much happier if Dave Nilsen had defined computers like that
discovered in Jim Hogan's second _Giants_ novel: Computers are blocks of
silicon or other materials using advanced principles we (20c humans) can't yet
understand, let along duplicate.  The programs that run on these computers
(including Virus) are created using advanced methods developed over thousands
of years.  Here's the cost, weight, capability, and difficulty to repair -- go
roleplay.  As long as there are no major violations of known laws of physics
(at least without a justifcation), nothing else should matter.


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


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

Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 15:46:31 -0500
From: traveller@MPGN.COM
Message-ID: <199601202046.PAA22418@mail.intercon.com>

***** UNDELIVERABLE MAIL sent to caw, being returned by mail!caw *****
mail: Error # 2 'Problem with mailfile' encountered on system mail

Received: from Ambassador.MPGN.COM by mail.intercon.com (Sendmail 8.6.12/950620.
JB) with ESMTP id PAA22410; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 15:46:26 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Ambassador.MPGN.COM (8.6.9/8.6.9) 
with SMTP id PAA14942; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 15:41:09 -0500
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 15:41:09 -0500
Message-Id: <9601201540.AA46749@caw.intercon.com>
Errors-To: traveller-request@mpgn.com
Reply-To: traveller@mpgn.com
Originator: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: traveller@mpgn.com
Precedence: bulk
From: "Christopher Weuve" <caw@intercon.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <traveller@mpgn.com>
Subject: Re: "Real Traveller" and GDW's past history
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Traveller Mailing List
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
MIME-Version: 1.0

William F. Hostman said:
> In the mid-80's, GDW Released Traveller 2300, a game supposedly
> set 3300 years before the CT/MT games primary timelines. As such, it
> was extremely criticized. It was also "divorced" from traveller
> quickly, as it's mechanics of spaceflight were quite different, and
> then married to T:2K (which was still in its non-house system days)
> and renamed 2300AD. T:2K is not a bad system. Nor, for overall
> system factors, is TNE. It is not, however, an outgrowth of the system
> for CT/MT, where 2300AD was (albeit a huge jump).

I don't think this is even close to accurate.  Here is story as I see it,
based on the materials issued by GDW and answers from GDW staff:

1) There was no "divorce", as Traveller:2300 was _never_ part of the CT/MT
timeline.  GDW decided to use the term Traveller for name recognition
purposes, similar to the way Dodge recycled the old "Charger" name for a
brand-new car design in the 1980s.  Traveller was thought to have run its
course [or they wanted to kill it, take your pick], and GDW wanted to do a
hard science RPG set a little closer to home.

2) The timeline for T:2300 was married to T2k from the very beginning.  Either
in the T:2300 rulebook or Challenge (since I am at work I can't check) a GDW
rep (Miller, I think) explained that the T:2300 game backgound was generated
one Saturday by starting with the T2k background and gaming it out 300 years
in the future.  [This is why the French were the dominant power -- the French
player "won".]  At one point GDW was giving away sets of the rules for this
game at conventions.  As of a few years ago, they still had the handmade map
of the world in a corner of their warehouse, but no longer any copies of the
rules.

3) T:2300 had a lot of problems, not the least of which was that people
thought it was supposed to be part of the classic Traveller universe.  They
issued a second edition with a new name (2300AD) and heavily reworked
mechanics. 2300AD also included supplementary materials originally presented
in Challenge.


> But as for the look and feel of TNE, T:2K, DC, et al, I never liked
> the look of the books, nor the feel of the settings.

My main problem with the look of the TNE books is the fake computer screens --
they take up two much space which would have been better used presenting more
info.  I also thought the artwork was not as strong as some of the art in the
CT/MT/DGP/2300 days, at least in part due to the departure of Tom Peters for
the computer gaming industry.  (Tom's artwork, for example, includes the
drawing of the Fiery class escort in MegaTraveller Journal.)

My main problem with the feel of the TNE setting was the way Virus was
descibed [_not_ the concept of Virus itself].  This problem also extends to a
lot of the criticism I have heard regarding Virus.  The game takes place
several thousand years in the future, yet the computers work like our
computers (only better), and Virus and the sentient chips were explained in
present day terms.

Everytime I hear a programmer say Virus is impossible, I shudder -- as a
computer professional with ten years experience and an interest in the history
of computer science, I flashback to the founder of DEC saying there is no
market for personal computers or Bill Gates saying no one will ever need more
that 640k.  The criticism that Virus is impossible is as temporally-limited as
saying that Virus is impossible because it doesn't use punch cards.

I would have been much happier if Dave Nilsen had defined computers like that
discovered in Jim Hogan's second _Giants_ novel: Computers are blocks of
silicon or other materials using advanced principles we (20c humans) can't yet
understand, let along duplicate.  The programs that run on these computers
(including Virus) are created using advanced methods developed over thousands
of years.  Here's the cost, weight, capability, and difficulty to repair -- go
roleplay.  As long as there are no major violations of known laws of physics
(at least without a justifcation), nothing else should matter.


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


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

Date: Sat, 20 Jan 96 15:25:56 CST
From: ereddoch@amaranth.com (Eris Reddoch)
To: dgpinfo@cyberspace.com, rodge@cyberspace.com, traveller@MPGN.COM,
Subject: Re: DGP & TRAVELLER!!!
Message-ID: <199601202136.PAA11542@linux.amaranth.com>

Roger,

On Fri, 12 Jan 1996 19:04:55 -0800 you wrote:

>I've  been inundated  by queries  from fans  of Traveller and DGP
>about DGP's role in Marc Miller's forthcoming Traveller odyssey.

I'll bet you have!  <g>

I just discovered the Traveller mailing lists last summer,
after being a player/gm for 20 years.   I suspect there are
massive numbers of people out there that play Traveller, and have
*no* idea yet about GDW folding, MM coming back, or DGP's
rebirth.

>    Will DGP produce Traveller goodies like it used to?

>        The  precise details  haven't  been  worked out  yet, but
>        tentatively,  "yes".  (Please  see  my comments following
>        this FAQ.)

Great!  There are several dgp items I'd like to get hold of that
are long since out of print.

>    Will DGP start up the Travellers' Digest again?

>        Let  me answer  this question  with another  question: Is
>        this something you really really want?

Actually, yes.

If MM really does take Traveller down multiple timelines, then
there will be room for 1 or 2 *comprehensive* Traveller magazines
(probably quarterly) and several smaller specialized journals
covering the main divergent timelines.  TRAVELLER CHRONICLE looks
like 1 of the comprehensive magazines, *someone* should publish a
second one.  The specialized journals might end up being
"Fanzines", or "E-zines."


>    What were DGP's unfinished projects?

>        Grand Explorations
>        World Builder's on Computer
>        Second Survey on Computer

I'd be most interested in these 3.

System and world building is a special interest of mine.  If MM
takes the game into "The Long Night" and "The First Imperium",
then exploring *new* (or at least uncharted) systems is going to
become very important.  The Traveller algorithms (and all their
official extensions) are quite dated now, and need to be updated.

>    Will DGP make its library of Traveller publications available
>    on CD-ROM?

>        We're working on it. (See below)

That's something I'd be interested in!

>Here are some ideas for  convenient gaming resources which DGP is
>mulling over.  Please let me know  which of these you  would most
>likely purchase if DGP made them available (in book form):

>    THE GRAND TOUR -- All 21  episodes of the epic adventure from
>    the  Travellers'  Digest  Magazine,  compiled  into one book,
>    complete   with  support   material,  and   of  course   with
>    embellishments and enhancements.

Nope.  I've got them all from the original magazines.

>    ADVENTURE  RESOURCE  --  All  other  adventures and scenarios
>    published by DGP from its various publications and magazines,
>    with relevant support material.

I doubt it, seeing as I've got most of them.  I'd prefer new ones
in a magazine format.


What I'd like to see:

FF&S II, FF&S Lite, and conversion rules to get CT and MT
stuff into FF&S format.  My games us a lot of "alternate"
technology, and I loved the concept of FF&S..it's implementation
left some things to be desired.  I know you guys didn't do FF&S,
but you *could* do the second edition.

WORLD BUILDERS II and WB II on disk (DOS is still the common
denominator) to build systems.  Both my current campaigns are
running during a "long night"..not *the* Long Night..and the
players often run into systems about which they know nothing.  I
want to see algorithms that create systems that conform a little
more closely to what we think is reality.

Personally, I can supply the adventures. <g>


Later,

Eris



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

Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 16:37:33 -0500
From: traveller@MPGN.COM
Message-ID: <199601202137.QAA24193@mail.intercon.com>

***** UNDELIVERABLE MAIL sent to caw, being returned by mail!caw *****
mail: Error # 2 'Problem with mailfile' encountered on system mail

Received: from Ambassador.MPGN.COM by mail.intercon.com (Sendmail 8.6.12/950620.
JB) with ESMTP id QAA24176; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 16:37:29 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Ambassador.MPGN.COM (8.6.9/8.6.9) 
with SMTP id QAA15614; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 16:33:30 -0500
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 16:33:30 -0500
Message-Id: <199601202136.PAA11542@linux.amaranth.com>
Errors-To: traveller-request@mpgn.com
Reply-To: traveller@mpgn.com
Originator: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: traveller@mpgn.com
Precedence: bulk
From: ereddoch@amaranth.com (Eris Reddoch)
To: Multiple recipients of list <traveller@mpgn.com>
Subject: Re: DGP & TRAVELLER!!!
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Traveller Mailing List

Roger,

On Fri, 12 Jan 1996 19:04:55 -0800 you wrote:

>I've  been inundated  by queries  from fans  of Traveller and DGP
>about DGP's role in Marc Miller's forthcoming Traveller odyssey.

I'll bet you have!  <g>

I just discovered the Traveller mailing lists last summer,
after being a player/gm for 20 years.   I suspect there are
massive numbers of people out there that play Traveller, and have
*no* idea yet about GDW folding, MM coming back, or DGP's
rebirth.

>    Will DGP produce Traveller goodies like it used to?

>        The  precise details  haven't  been  worked out  yet, but
>        tentatively,  "yes".  (Please  see  my comments following
>        this FAQ.)

Great!  There are several dgp items I'd like to get hold of that
are long since out of print.

>    Will DGP start up the Travellers' Digest again?

>        Let  me answer  this question  with another  question: Is
>        this something you really really want?

Actually, yes.

If MM really does take Traveller down multiple timelines, then
there will be room for 1 or 2 *comprehensive* Traveller magazines
(probably quarterly) and several smaller specialized journals
covering the main divergent timelines.  TRAVELLER CHRONICLE looks
like 1 of the comprehensive magazines, *someone* should publish a
second one.  The specialized journals might end up being
"Fanzines", or "E-zines."


>    What were DGP's unfinished projects?

>        Grand Explorations
>        World Builder's on Computer
>        Second Survey on Computer

I'd be most interested in these 3.

System and world building is a special interest of mine.  If MM
takes the game into "The Long Night" and "The First Imperium",
then exploring *new* (or at least uncharted) systems is going to
become very important.  The Traveller algorithms (and all their
official extensions) are quite dated now, and need to be updated.

>    Will DGP make its library of Traveller publications available
>    on CD-ROM?

>        We're working on it. (See below)

That's something I'd be interested in!

>Here are some ideas for  convenient gaming resources which DGP is
>mulling over.  Please let me know  which of these you  would most
>likely purchase if DGP made them available (in book form):

>    THE GRAND TOUR -- All 21  episodes of the epic adventure from
>    the  Travellers'  Digest  Magazine,  compiled  into one book,
>    complete   with  support   material,  and   of  course   with
>    embellishments and enhancements.

Nope.  I've got them all from the original magazines.

>    ADVENTURE  RESOURCE  --  All  other  adventures and scenarios
>    published by DGP from its various publications and magazines,
>    with relevant support material.

I doubt it, seeing as I've got most of them.  I'd prefer new ones
in a magazine format.


What I'd like to see:

FF&S II, FF&S Lite, and conversion rules to get CT and MT
stuff into FF&S format.  My games us a lot of "alternate"
technology, and I loved the concept of FF&S..it's implementation
left some things to be desired.  I know you guys didn't do FF&S,
but you *could* do the second edition.

WORLD BUILDERS II and WB II on disk (DOS is still the common
denominator) to build systems.  Both my current campaigns are
running during a "long night"..not *the* Long Night..and the
players often run into systems about which they know nothing.  I
want to see algorithms that create systems that conform a little
more closely to what we think is reality.

Personally, I can supply the adventures. <g>


Later,

Eris



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

Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 17:16:14 -0700
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Traveller's future
Message-ID: <199601210016.AA14007@ns-1.csn.net>

        Well, stop reading mail for a week, and see how full your mailbox
gets! Unfortunately, things are going to limit my online time for the
foreseeable future, so I wanted to say a few things real quick

        1) Despite everybody else's arguments, I still hate the idea of Yet
Another Rule Set. I definitely think TNE is the best overall so far. TNE was
much better quality than MT (I almost gave up on Traveller because of MT,
and I know most game stores in Southern California declined to carry it)

        2) DON'T TAKE AWAY FF&S! I'm a gearhead, and that's my favorite part
of the rules ... the idea that there's a consistent way to design new stuff
in detail, and have it mesh. HOWEVER, I also think the FF&S Lite idea is
great. Publish the full up detailed design rules as one supplement. Then
design a bunch of drop-in "standardized" components, and publish a
simplified design system (which _must_ be fully compatible with the detailed
one).

        In fact, I'd like to see more detail ... example: life support. I've
always assumed the standard life support in traveller was a short-term
system only, requiring recharging every few weeks. Give me more options ...
a very (day) short term, open loop system, the standard, weeklong partially
closed loop system, and levels of long-endurance closed loop systems (for
exploration vessels, generation ships, space stations, etc.).

        3) Get better distribution! Nobody around here carried much
Traveller stuff, and I've given up hope on getting a copy of the RSB and
Striker II. Cripes, walk into any bookstore nowadays and you'll find T$R trash.

        4) DON'T GO BACK TO THE OLD CHARACTER GENERATION SYSTEM! While the
new one is slightly better, this is also the one area I think which could
use some improvement. Ditch the fixed 4-year terms. One optional character
generation I'd like to see is simply roll up the total number of points the
character will have, and let the PLAYER allocate them as desired to
characteristics and skills! Maybe let the player choose a career, and have
certain minimums he/she has to meet (i.e.: Doctor -- must have at least
Biology-3, Medical-6, Research-1, Liaison-1, Bureaucracy-1; or some such)

        5) I like the task system -- TNE's or MT's, actually. Both were a
simple way of resolving _everything_.

        6) Keep the combat system integrated more or less across the whole
spectrum -- I ought to be able to use the same penetration/damage system
whether I'm firing my PGMP-12 at a person, an air/raft, or a starship, or if
I'm using a 750Mj laser instead.

        7) BL -- keep. There are tweaks identified by the GDW-Beta list, and
it's going to need quite a bit of work if you change the rules (especially
FF&S) again


        My biggest opposition to a new set of rules is that -- EVERYTHING
will have to be redone, and it'll take that much longer. And don't suggest
going back to CT/MT rules again -- things like FF&S, BL, BR would still have
to be completely redone, and the old rules frankly lacked enough detail.
Finally, each succeeding set of rules increased the "pseudo" realism of the
game, which is what I liked.

        If we're voting, as somebody suggested, those are my votes, and I'll
register them with my pocketbook.
 ___________________________________________________________________
  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: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 17:16:23 -0700
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Traveller Rules (Was Re:Yars)
Message-ID: <199601210016.AA14017@ns-1.csn.net>

At 01:25 pm 1/16/96 -0500, BLAIRM@eworld.com wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Jan 1996 17:32:50  David J. Golden wrote:
>xxxxxxx BEGIN QUOTE xxxxxxx
>        You're missing the point. Many people feel the TNE rules (myself
>included) are a great improvement over CT or MT. Yes, I started with three
>little black books. Then I moved along to the MT. Now I'm relatively happy
>with TNE. Each step, I felt, was an improvement over the others. I DON'T
>WANT TO GO BACK TO CT OR MT -- if I did, I'd still be there.
>        What I _do_ want is the current rules with a few tweaks. And scads
>of background material and adventures. I don't have the time or energy (or
>creativity, frankly) to come up with all that stuff. And the effort spent
>updating and reissuing the rules would better be spent on that kind of stuff.
>xxxxxxx END QUOTE xxxxxxx
>
>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.

        Hallelujah! I was beginning to think I was the only one! But I've
just about resigned myself to a step backward, and wondering if I should
bother mustering enough interest to check the Final Generation out ... maybe
I'm being to premature, but that's where I'm at.
 ___________________________________________________________________
  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: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 17:16:26 -0700
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Rules & Tl stuff
Message-ID: <199601210016.AA14026@ns-1.csn.net>

At 11:00 pm 1/16/96 -0500, David C. Broussard wrote:
>Comments on a couple of recent postings.
>2. In response to -- The absolutely, completely, *inexcusibly* unworkable
>Technology Level system.
>
>        I agree partly with Phil MacGregor's argument, and the response by
>Christopher Weuve.  TL doesn't exactly work, and bre4aking it out into
>multiple systems would be better.

        That's why I liked the system from World Builder's Handbook ... on
the other hand, a single tech level can give travellers a ROUGH idea of what
kind of world they'll be on. If they want more detail, they then look it up.

>3. In response the the general BASHING of TNE rules, along with the dislike
>of FF&S, I have these pearls of wisdom to offer.
>
>        3.1 - I for one like the TNE rules.  I even like the Task Resolution
>system.  I like the fact that a character can not have a skill, and has a
>chance to perform the skill.  I also like the asset with a firm belief that
>statistics play a part in performance.  Otherwise ANYONE could play
>professional sports!  I would puch to use percentiles instead of D-20s, and
>please NO D-6 rolls.  I HATE 2-12 ranges!

        THANK YOU!

>        3.2 AS for the FF&S bashing.  I can agree with you on this to a
>certain extent.  I do like the ability to customize to the detail that FF&S
>goves me.  However I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of
>starships I have designed with it.  I have a 3" binder someplace full of
>starships, vehicles, etc I designed under Book 2 and High Guard.  My
>suggestion would be this. It also BTW: solves the ship contruction problems.
>We can use the basics of FF&S to design components that fit into vehicles,
>starships, etc.  For example.  You want to build a starship.  It will be a
>custom built hull (most ships are anyway).  However, you decide you want to
>get Jump 3 performance.  So the contractor building it plops in a basic
>component that gives your rated 50 or 100 ton hull increment.  It may waste
>tonnage, but its guarranteed to work for your ship.  Then you put in plain
>vanilla sockets, and the weaponry for them.  Computers are next, Life
>support etc.  All standard components (e.g.) Buy a Gigaserver 9000 rated to
>handle a up to a 1000 ton ship, or simply allocate xm^3 per person for Life
>Support.  Finally it comes time for the power plant.  Instead of custom
>building a powerplant for the exact MW req for your ship, you purchase
>plants in 10, 25, 50, 100 MW increments.  Gee this does sound a bit liek old
>book 2.  This BTW does solve the ship building time problem.  Figure the
>time to build the hull, then to git it out.  Everything else is standard.  I
>would suspect that a competent shipyard could put out a Free Trader with a
>few custom mods in about 2-3 weeks.  Military ships would most liekly NOT
>use this ssytem, they would have most of their stuff custom built, but it
>would not necesarily be higher tech (smaller, lighter, etc).  MilSpec is
>built to rougher standards, and is often 2-5 times larger/heavier than CivSpec.

        This a good description of what I'd like to see for FF&S lite.

PS: MilSpec is mostly on its way out for the US acquisition process. Not
that it's germane to the discussion, just felt like rambling on ....
 ___________________________________________________________________
  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: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 19:20:23 -0500
From: traveller@MPGN.COM
Message-ID: <199601210020.TAA27866@mail.intercon.com>

***** UNDELIVERABLE MAIL sent to caw, being returned by mail!caw *****
mail: Error # 2 'Problem with mailfile' encountered on system mail

Received: from Ambassador.MPGN.COM by mail.intercon.com (Sendmail 8.6.12/950620.
JB) with ESMTP id TAA27859; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 19:20:16 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Ambassador.MPGN.COM (8.6.9/8.6.9) 
with SMTP id TAA17616; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 19:17:02 -0500
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 19:17:02 -0500
Message-Id: <199601210016.AA14017@ns-1.csn.net>
Errors-To: traveller-request@mpgn.com
Reply-To: traveller@mpgn.com
Originator: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: traveller@mpgn.com
Precedence: bulk
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <traveller@mpgn.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller Rules (Was Re:Yars)
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Traveller Mailing List
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 01:25 pm 1/16/96 -0500, BLAIRM@eworld.com wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Jan 1996 17:32:50  David J. Golden wrote:
>xxxxxxx BEGIN QUOTE xxxxxxx
>        You're missing the point. Many people feel the TNE rules (myself
>included) are a great improvement over CT or MT. Yes, I started with three
>little black books. Then I moved along to the MT. Now I'm relatively happy
>with TNE. Each step, I felt, was an improvement over the others. I DON'T
>WANT TO GO BACK TO CT OR MT -- if I did, I'd still be there.
>        What I _do_ want is the current rules with a few tweaks. And scads
>of background material and adventures. I don't have the time or energy (or
>creativity, frankly) to come up with all that stuff. And the effort spent
>updating and reissuing the rules would better be spent on that kind of stuff.
>xxxxxxx END QUOTE xxxxxxx
>
>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.

        Hallelujah! I was beginning to think I was the only one! But I've
just about resigned myself to a step backward, and wondering if I should
bother mustering enough interest to check the Final Generation out ... maybe
I'm being to premature, but that's where I'm at.
 ___________________________________________________________________
  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: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 19:22:11 -0500
From: traveller@MPGN.COM
Message-ID: <199601210022.TAA27887@mail.intercon.com>

***** UNDELIVERABLE MAIL sent to caw, being returned by mail!caw *****
mail: Error # 2 'Problem with mailfile' encountered on system mail

Received: from Ambassador.MPGN.COM by mail.intercon.com (Sendmail 8.6.12/950620.
JB) with ESMTP id TAA27880; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 19:22:09 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Ambassador.MPGN.COM (8.6.9/8.6.9) 
with SMTP id TAA17607; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 19:16:50 -0500
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 19:16:50 -0500
Message-Id: <199601210016.AA14007@ns-1.csn.net>
Errors-To: traveller-request@mpgn.com
Reply-To: traveller@mpgn.com
Originator: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: traveller@mpgn.com
Precedence: bulk
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <traveller@mpgn.com>
Subject: Traveller's future
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Traveller Mailing List
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

        Well, stop reading mail for a week, and see how full your mailbox
gets! Unfortunately, things are going to limit my online time for the
foreseeable future, so I wanted to say a few things real quick

        1) Despite everybody else's arguments, I still hate the idea of Yet
Another Rule Set. I definitely think TNE is the best overall so far. TNE was
much better quality than MT (I almost gave up on Traveller because of MT,
and I know most game stores in Southern California declined to carry it)

        2) DON'T TAKE AWAY FF&S! I'm a gearhead, and that's my favorite part
of the rules ... the idea that there's a consistent way to design new stuff
in detail, and have it mesh. HOWEVER, I also think the FF&S Lite idea is
great. Publish the full up detailed design rules as one supplement. Then
design a bunch of drop-in "standardized" components, and publish a
simplified design system (which _must_ be fully compatible with the detailed
one).

        In fact, I'd like to see more detail ... example: life support. I've
always assumed the standard life support in traveller was a short-term
system only, requiring recharging every few weeks. Give me more options ...
a very (day) short term, open loop system, the standard, weeklong partially
closed loop system, and levels of long-endurance closed loop systems (for
exploration vessels, generation ships, space stations, etc.).

        3) Get better distribution! Nobody around here carried much
Traveller stuff, and I've given up hope on getting a copy of the RSB and
Striker II. Cripes, walk into any bookstore nowadays and you'll find T$R trash.

        4) DON'T GO BACK TO THE OLD CHARACTER GENERATION SYSTEM! While the
new one is slightly better, this is also the one area I think which could
use some improvement. Ditch the fixed 4-year terms. One optional character
generation I'd like to see is simply roll up the total number of points the
character will have, and let the PLAYER allocate them as desired to
characteristics and skills! Maybe let the player choose a career, and have
certain minimums he/she has to meet (i.e.: Doctor -- must have at least
Biology-3, Medical-6, Research-1, Liaison-1, Bureaucracy-1; or some such)

        5) I like the task system -- TNE's or MT's, actually. Both were a
simple way of resolving _everything_.

        6) Keep the combat system integrated more or less across the whole
spectrum -- I ought to be able to use the same penetration/damage system
whether I'm firing my PGMP-12 at a person, an air/raft, or a starship, or if
I'm using a 750Mj laser instead.

        7) BL -- keep. There are tweaks identified by the GDW-Beta list, and
it's going to need quite a bit of work if you change the rules (especially
FF&S) again


        My biggest opposition to a new set of rules is that -- EVERYTHING
will have to be redone, and it'll take that much longer. And don't suggest
going back to CT/MT rules again -- things like FF&S, BL, BR would still have
to be completely redone, and the old rules frankly lacked enough detail.
Finally, each succeeding set of rules increased the "pseudo" realism of the
game, which is what I liked.

        If we're voting, as somebody suggested, those are my votes, and I'll
register them with my pocketbook.
 ___________________________________________________________________
  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: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 19:22:17 -0500
From: traveller@MPGN.COM
Message-ID: <199601210022.TAA27897@mail.intercon.com>

***** UNDELIVERABLE MAIL sent to caw, being returned by mail!caw *****
mail: Error # 2 'Problem with mailfile' encountered on system mail

Received: from Ambassador.MPGN.COM by mail.intercon.com (Sendmail 8.6.12/950620.
JB) with ESMTP id TAA27890; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 19:22:14 -0500
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Ambassador.MPGN.COM (8.6.9/8.6.9) 
with SMTP id TAA17624; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 19:17:13 -0500
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 19:17:13 -0500
Message-Id: <199601210016.AA14026@ns-1.csn.net>
Errors-To: traveller-request@mpgn.com
Reply-To: traveller@mpgn.com
Originator: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: traveller@mpgn.com
Precedence: bulk
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <traveller@mpgn.com>
Subject: Re: Rules & Tl stuff
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Traveller Mailing List
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 11:00 pm 1/16/96 -0500, David C. Broussard wrote:
>Comments on a couple of recent postings.
>2. In response to -- The absolutely, completely, *inexcusibly* unworkable
>Technology Level system.
>
>        I agree partly with Phil MacGregor's argument, and the response by
>Christopher Weuve.  TL doesn't exactly work, and bre4aking it out into
>multiple systems would be better.

        That's why I liked the system from World Builder's Handbook ... on
the other hand, a single tech level can give travellers a ROUGH idea of what
kind of world they'll be on. If they want more detail, they then look it up.

>3. In response the the general BASHING of TNE rules, along with the dislike
>of FF&S, I have these pearls of wisdom to offer.
>
>        3.1 - I for one like the TNE rules.  I even like the Task Resolution
>system.  I like the fact that a character can not have a skill, and has a
>chance to perform the skill.  I also like the asset with a firm belief that
>statistics play a part in performance.  Otherwise ANYONE could play
>professional sports!  I would puch to use percentiles instead of D-20s, and
>please NO D-6 rolls.  I HATE 2-12 ranges!

        THANK YOU!

>        3.2 AS for the FF&S bashing.  I can agree with you on this to a
>certain extent.  I do like the ability to customize to the detail that FF&S
>goves me.  However I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of
>starships I have designed with it.  I have a 3" binder someplace full of
>starships, vehicles, etc I designed under Book 2 and High Guard.  My
>suggestion would be this. It also BTW: solves the ship contruction problems.
>We can use the basics of FF&S to design components that fit into vehicles,
>starships, etc.  For example.  You want to build a starship.  It will be a
>custom built hull (most ships are anyway).  However, you decide you want to
>get Jump 3 performance.  So the contractor building it plops in a basic
>component that gives your rated 50 or 100 ton hull increment.  It may waste
>tonnage, but its guarranteed to work for your ship.  Then you put in plain
>vanilla sockets, and the weaponry for them.  Computers are next, Life
>support etc.  All standard components (e.g.) Buy a Gigaserver 9000 rated to
>handle a up to a 1000 ton ship, or simply allocate xm^3 per person for Life
>Support.  Finally it comes time for the power plant.  Instead of custom
>building a powerplant for the exact MW req for your ship, you purchase
>plants in 10, 25, 50, 100 MW increments.  Gee this does sound a bit liek old
>book 2.  This BTW does solve the ship building time problem.  Figure the
>time to build the hull, then to git it out.  Everything else is standard.  I
>would suspect that a competent shipyard could put out a Free Trader with a
>few custom mods in about 2-3 weeks.  Military ships would most liekly NOT
>use this ssytem, they would have most of their stuff custom built, but it
>would not necesarily be higher tech (smaller, lighter, etc).  MilSpec is
>built to rougher standards, and is often 2-5 times larger/heavier than CivSpec.

        This a good description of what I'd like to see for FF&S lite.

PS: MilSpec is mostly on its way out for the US acquisition process. Not
that it's germane to the discussion, just felt like rambling on ....
 ___________________________________________________________________
  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


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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 559
***************************
