TRAVELLER Digest 570

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Traveller's Background: Where Should it Go? by Phillip McGregor <aspqrz@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>
  2) Rating Technology in Game Systems by Phillip McGregor <aspqrz@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>
  3) Re: Rating Technology in Game Systems by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  4) The rules by grimscal@dove.mtx.net.au
  5) Re: TRAVELLER digest 569 by A.S.Lilly@bnr.co.uk (Andy Lilly)
  6) Re: The rules by "David J. Golden" <goldendj@csn.net>

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 16:27:03 +1100 (EST)
From: Phillip McGregor <aspqrz@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM, xboat@MPGN.COM
Subject: Traveller's Background: Where Should it Go?
Message-ID: <199601280527.QAA23964@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>

There has been a lot of debate about where future Traveller products should
be set ... and a number of people seem to have the feeling that setting them
in the "past" (i.e. pre-Virus) is pointless, as we "know" how it all turns
out.

Why so? I don't know what the debate on these lists over Virus was like, but
I have not met one person in the gaming scene locally who thinks Virus is
anything but a laughably ridiculous piece of ****. Regardless of whether
*you*, dear reader, agree with this summation or not, the point I'm going
to make is valid ...

Why assume that anything is inevitable? Why not have CTrav and MTrav era
settings now republished as part of a *new timeline* for all those long-
term players who were totally pissed off by the bad joke that was Virus?
Have an alternative ending for the Rebellion ... and let the players work
their way through it, don't just jump 70 or 80 years into the future!

This in no way invalidates the TNE future ... keep on developing that
separately, assuming that Virus happened the way it did. Let the sales
of the assorted gear sort out the problem.

This leaves room for a lot of common ground ... the basic system (whatever
Marc Miller chooses that to be) will be the same for both, gear design will
be the same for both. Only the background will be different ... and the
CT/MTrav era stuff that is republished will have a lot of crossover value
for TNE era stuff anyway ... as "history".

Solves the problem neatly! Keeps everyone happy ... the "one true way"
supporters on *both* sides excepted, of course!

Phil McGregor

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 16:39:30 +1100 (EST)
From: Phillip McGregor <aspqrz@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM, xboat@MPGN.COM
Subject: Rating Technology in Game Systems
Message-ID: <199601280539.QAA25995@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>

The single biggest problem that faces Traveller, increasingly from the
time of MTrav, is its mania with rating things in *real world* terms. As
we have seen, the "advanced" tech of MTrav has been replaced in many
instances with *different* "advanced tech" of TNE simply because of real
world developments.

Now, I know this is going to be controversial, but as a Designer myself,
I do *not* design design rules which use real world values! Why? Simple,
they are inevitably (and sooner than you think, *always*!) going to be
found too be incorrect (either too optimistic or too pessimistic).

The real success of CT Starship Design as laid out in Book #3 Starships and
Book #5 High Guard was that there was no crossover with real world values.
Everyone could happily design Starships without the least concern that they
may not live up to realistic values - there was simply no way to compare!

This should apply for *all* vehicles. As for other equipment, yes, even guns!
there should be *no* design sequence per se, perhaps some rules for having a
weapon *customised*, but no more. There is no realistic way that you can
do it and not be caught out ... look at the whole Traveller/Twilight 2000
/2300 AD universe. Look at the "advanced" turretless tanks of TW:2000 - never
got beyond the drawing board; the G-11 and Caseless ammo weapons, still not
in production (and given Bundeswehr funding cuts as result of unification,
seemingly never likely to, either), and likely not to be, ever; and now the
latest "fad" technology of FF&S, "electro-thermal combustion" rounds. In all
likelihood these, too, will fall by the wayside in a year or two - and FF&S
will have to replace them with something else "you beaut" that, in turn, will
have to be replaced soon down the track.

Nope, just give us some advanced weapon designs for each TL (after doing some
serious hack and slash surgery on the curreny TL rating system's idiocies)
and GMs will be happy enough to create new weapons based on what "seems
reaonable" compared to existing designs. After all, how in the hell do you
think CT Weapons (and MTrav weapons, of course) were "designed" - by the
"seems reasonable" rule, of course!!!

The rest is a mere chimera. Most players and GMs (as a number of people
have noted) have neither the time nor the desire to go through the design
rules as they exist, anyway. And for ghu's sake, make it possible to design
a spaceship as it was in CTrav ... step by step, with no having to cut and
fit step 13 before you can do step 3 as in MTrav and TNE!

Anyway, that's my 2d worth!

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 23:08:47 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Rating Technology in Game Systems
Message-ID: <9601280608.AA23371@Rt66.com>


> The rest is a mere chimera. Most players and GMs (as a number of people
> have noted) have neither the time nor the desire to go through the design
> rules as they exist, anyway. And for ghu's sake, make it possible to design
> a spaceship as it was in CTrav ... step by step, with no having to cut and
> fit step 13 before you can do step 3 as in MTrav and TNE!

Huh?  Assuming that you use plug-in weapons, etc. (admitidly hard to do
in FFS as it was published) a FFS ship is still pretty step by step.  HG
forces you to reserve space for about the PP you want, then fit it in
once you really know what size you need... thus leaving an iteritive
process in the system (unless you don't bother to optimize the design).

The real problem is the order (or lack thereof) that they have you do
stuff, not the actual system.  Make hull.  Put required stuff in (all
volume based---drives, LS, EMM, fuel, etc.).  Put extra stuff in.  Check
PP vs. space left (same as HG).  Done.

And as for there being no way to base the technologies on present
systems, I don't buy it.  It doesn't say that caseless ammo is *the*
ammo of whatever TL.  So what if we never end up using it here, some
other world of similar TL might (the caseless ammo company was owned by
the defense minister on that world, so even though it was found to be
not a really good idea one place, it got used there anyway).  And
besides, I think that some of the technical information helps give
useful information to some players.

Say the PC is a pilot... highly trained, must know a fair bit of
physics.  If the actual player is an insurance adjuster (like my friend
Tom :-) it might be interesting for him to know about the way his drives
work (energy in, energy out, etc.).  Or if he's military how much energy
per cm^2 it takes to bore holes in his ship.  Any number of things that
the detailed designs can/could give.

Of course this is all only true when the system is at least
consistant---and easy to read/use.

A few more credits for the pot,
Merrick

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 19:17:15 +0000
From: grimscal@dove.mtx.net.au
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: The rules
Message-ID: <199601280846.TAA13881@dove.mtx.net.au>

Hello to all
  After hearing the talk about the TNE rules being too hard or
  complicated, I had to say somthing.

 To me the rule supplied all of the missing details from the first
two rule sets. Granted there where some Problems with Ambiguity
and Contradictions. But All in all I could use the rules to cover
almost avery aspect of the game from design to space combat.

You can wargame while roleplaying or just roleplay with TNE.
The game mechanic are better to use because there are fewer
gape in the rules then before. Once you get going the rules become
easy almost simple to use.

This game Is about details, Its not a space opera, its about going
out there and doing it from the nuts and bolts and up.

Here is a comment from terry my lurking friend...

  I have been role playing for four years. I have only played
traveller for one year ander the TNE rules. I have found the rule to
be a hell of a lot clearer then any other rule system that I have
played under. If you want tuff, then try to GM shadowrun!.


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

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 12:53:25 +0000
From: A.S.Lilly@bnr.co.uk (Andy Lilly)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 569
Message-ID: <199601281307.IAA21467@Mithril.MPGN.COM>

I'm quoting here from Armand's message in TML569; this isn't meant to pick
on him, it's just it's easier for me to quote from his message than to
amalgamate all the "for-TNE" posts I've seen elsewhere. The only reason I'm
posting this is because I happened to sit down with a few minutes to spare
in the little room in the house and took Hard Times in for reading matter...

In TML569, Armand Suarez <suarez@on.rim.or.jp> said:
>...
>I find Virus very interesting, and I'm a little glad the Imperuim's gone =
>because it was too stable and big, and most adventures published were =
>for a bunch of merchants or trade spies, which I personally am not so =
>interested in...

Anyone out there who bought Hard Times? Examine it again! By 1126, the
Imperium had been reduced to a complete mix of order and chaos, high and low
tech, controlled military societies through to worlds lost due to lack of
trade, tech, whatever.

* A perfect mixed environment - any adventure you could want from merchant
trading to rediscovering lost worlds.

* And in the _near_ future, so you could still use the same characters from
CT and MT games. The same major players were still around. All that history
built up in CT and MT still _meant_ something.

* No Virus needed to cause the disruption - it had already happened! The
Virus has caused so much controversy, e.g. pitiful excuses about maintaining
anti-Virus patrols over boundaries that were billions of times too huge in
the 2D mapping system, let alone considering 3D!!!!

The only reason I can see that GDW went for the Virus was because they
needed a new setting to go with their new rules system in their "unify and
get back the rights from DGP" approach, and 'dark and dismal' seemed to be
the order of the day (and still is, judging by the better selling current RPGs).

I'm quite happy with the RC setting, but it didn't need to be the _only_
bastion of hope (apart from the "oops, better leave somewhere with high tech
to stop the CT/MT fans getting p*ssed off" Regency).

In the Hard Times setting groups such as the RC could have sprung up in any
of the Wilds areas. They would still have had the same adventure
opportunities and when they expanded to meet the still surviving power
bases, just think of the possibilities for battles, diplomacy, etc. that
could have occurred without each such event over-turning the _whole_ of the
Imperium setting.

Anyway, hopefully Marc is listening...

Andy Lilly
Coordinating BITS (British Isles Traveller Support)


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

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 12:43:06 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@csn.net>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: The rules
Message-ID: <1.5.4b11.32.19960128184306.006ed6d8@lynx.csn.net>

At 03:47 am 1/28/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Hello to all
>  After hearing the talk about the TNE rules being too hard or
>  complicated, I had to say somthing.
>
> To me the rule supplied all of the missing details from the first
>two rule sets. Granted there where some Problems with Ambiguity
>and Contradictions. But All in all I could use the rules to cover
>almost avery aspect of the game from design to space combat.
>
>You can wargame while roleplaying or just roleplay with TNE.
>The game mechanic are better to use because there are fewer
>gape in the rules then before. Once you get going the rules become
>easy almost simple to use.

        I think the biggest problem was not with the rules, but the setting.
Many people reacted violently to the whole Virus setting, and since they
didn't like the setting decided they didn't like the rules ... hence never
got going. Which is why I think it critically important that any new rules
be as divorced from a specific setting as the original Classic Traveller
rules were.
 ___________________________________________________________________
  Dave Golden                              PGP Public Key available
  goldendj@whip.com
  http://www2.csn.net/~goldendj/index.html -- Last updated 24 Jan 96

 "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 570
***************************
