TRAVELLER Digest 583

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: T4 Wish List by "David E. Brooks Jr" <dbj@MPGN.COM>
  2) Re: construction worker by "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpgate.read.tasc.com>
  3) TRAVELLER auction (almost over) by muskrat@msn.fullfeed.com (John Kovalic)
  4) CG capabilities by Craig Berry <cberry@hollywood.cinenet.net>
  5) RE: Discarding TNE?!, & various... by That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
  6) RE: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? (TNE vs. CT) by That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
  7) RE: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? (TNE vs. CT) by Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
  8) Re: USL Hull landings by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  9) Re: Why Can't We All Just Get Along?  (TNE vs. CT) by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
 10) RE: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? (TNE vs. CT) by That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
 11) The Debate by "M.A. Trickett" <mat3@leicester.ac.uk>
 12) RE: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? (TNE vs. CT) by Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>

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

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 10:29:17 -0500 (EST)
From: "David E. Brooks Jr" <dbj@MPGN.COM>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: T4 Wish List
Message-ID: <Pine.ULT.3.91.960206093156.11306B-100000@Central.KeyWest.MPGN.COM>

On Tue, 6 Feb 1996, Rob Prior made some comments I would like to add to:

> - Good design rules (ie. FF&S, although I like the scale efficiencies in MT),
> with either modular designs or lots of published designs for non-designers.

I have to admit, I prefer the relative simplicity of the MegaTraveller
starship construction rules to Fire, Fusion and Steel.  Why not have a
sub-set of construction rules in the base Traveller 4th edition set?
Leave out the high-end weaponary and defense systems, essentially make
it possible to design scout and merchant starships and grav vehicles
with the basic rules and leave strike cruisers, battleships, grav
tanks and fusion guns to a separate supplement.

And I agree, plenty of pre-designed equipment is essential.  There
should also be price lists for standard items as well (How much is a
meal, a standard set of clothes, a trained pet and so on).

> - Good world-gen rules.  World Builders Handbook, with the colonization stuff
> from World Tamers, integrated into an expanded CT trade goods ruleset.

Something I've always found a bit irksom with the system generation
rules was the fact that all orbits have pre-defined radii.  For
instance, all planets in the 6th orbit are 5.2 AUs away from their
star.  I'd like to see something that allows the orbits of planets and
belts in AUs instead of orbits, or at the very least allow for
fractional orbits (Fixed orbits are a little too neat and tidy for
me, I suppose).

> - A variety of adventures, _quickly_.  I think TNE suffered from an early
> concentration on covert ops/military adventures.  (So did Traveller, at
> first.)  I'll admit they are easier to write, but I think a nice selection -
> some military, some merchant, some exploration, some colonization, some
> scientific... - will help the new Traveller gain a broader following.

> From a practical standpoint, I think the best thing we fans can do (other
> than buy the game), is to start writing adventure material.  If everyone on
> this list was to put together their favourite game (from any setting) as an
> Amber-Zone-length adventure then when T4 comes out there will be a reasonable
> supply of adventure material.  One of the reasons that D&D is so popular in
> high schools is not the rules, it's all the adventures TSR cranks out.  The
> kids can play D&D every lunchtime and never run out of published adventures -
> and they keep TSR in business!

While I think adventures are good, I think more focus should go on
reference material.  I'm not saying don't do adventures, just that
it's more useful to have material to create adventures from.

Let's take the Annic Nova as an example.  If it were a supplement and
sufficient detail about the ship and the race that crewed it were
available, multiple types of scenarios could be created, i.e. First
contact, salvage, diplomacy and who knows what else.  Instead, as an
adventure, the referee is strongly encouraged to use it solely as a
mystery/salvage operation--Not terribly useful if that group enjoys
political intrigue or combat.

(Hmm, interesting side tought:  Could the race that built the Annic
Nova be the same people responsible for the Empress Wave?  Inquiring
minds would like to know....)

> By the way, could someone repost Marc's address?  (And Clay Bush's address?)
> My system deleted all my old mailfiles (including my backup archives) in a
> disk partion crash last week.

I believe Marc's is:  FarFuture@aol.com

-- Dave

--
David E. Brooks Jr / dbj@MPGN.COM | GCS/O d? H+(-) s:+ g+ a w++(--) v
Tantalus Incorporated             | C++ UU++++$ UO P+>+++ L+ E N+ W+>+++
Key West, FL                      | M- V- po Y+ t+(++) !5 !j R+(++)>+++ G'
+1 305 293 8100 x15               | tv- b+>++ D B- e u+ h--- f+ r+++ n y?


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

Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 10:32:26 -0500
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpgate.read.tasc.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: construction worker
Message-ID: <s1172df3.053@smtpgate.read.tasc.com>

Date: Mon,  5 Feb 96 02:14:00 UTC 0000
Someone said:

>I would agree with this; who wants to play a 58th century construction
>worker?

   You mean you can't see the plot possibilities as a party of player
characters consisting of a construction worker, a policeman, a gang
member, a barbarian, a farmer, and a navy seaman (all with minimal
Song and Dance skills) roam the galaxy in search of adventure?

   Have you no sense of camp?  :-)

Regards,

Harold


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

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 10:10:16 -0600
From: muskrat@msn.fullfeed.com (John Kovalic)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: TRAVELLER auction (almost over)
Message-ID: <199602061610.KAA28879@fullfeed.msn.fullfeed.com>

    I know I said I wouldn't post this again here, but this will be the
LAST time. Promise. Anyway...with all the "Kill TNE/Praise TNE" threads
running on ad infinitum, I feel a little less guilty about taking up the
bandwidth. :-)

Here's an auction update.

    To Recap: I'd *like* to sell everything here as a group, so for
*everything*, the first bid at or over $225 gets it. Otherwise, everything
is up for individual sale, and they'll run as an auction until midnight,
Feb. 14.

Rules to follow.

Group bid for entire auction -- $180 judithmh@aol.com
Total Individual bids for entire auction -- $192

**********************

LOT # 1 - BOARD GAMES

Lot bid -- $90 - philip@psych.utoronto.ca
Total Individual bids for board games -- $90

AZHANTI HIGH LIGHTNING - very good shape, punched, some box wear.
$51 - sudet@well.com
$50 - ilgrouch@aol.com
$40 - rodge@cyberspace.com

AZHANTI HIGH LIGHTNING RULE BOOK - not sure how I got this extra one.
$4 - Scantrontb@aol.com
$2 - E.Watters@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK
$2 - A.S.Lilly@hedera.bnr.co.uk

FIFTH FRONTIER WAR - very good shape, punched, slight box wear.
$35 - aholt@cnj.digex.net
$30 - mitch@intersys.com
$25 - rodge@cyberspace.com

**********************

LOT # 2 - ALIEN MODULES

ASLAN (Module 1) - cover wear,  otherwise good shape.
$8 - ztravlr@icon-stl.net
$7 - A.S.Lilly@hedera.bnr.co.uk

VARGR (Module 3) - slight cover wear, otherwise very good shape.
$10 - ztravlr@icon-stl.net
$9 - gxh8@psu.edu
$8 - ztravlr@icon-stl.net

**********************

LOT # 3 - JOURNAL OF THE TRAVELLER'S AID SOCIETY

JTAS #3 - slight cover wear, otherwise very good shape.
$15 - mitch@intersys.com
$12 - ztravlr@icon-stl.net
$10 - A.S.Lilly@hedera.bnr.co.uk

JTAS #20 - *very* slight cover wear, otherwise very good shape.
$6 - ztravlr@icon-stl.net
$4 - alvin.plummer@sheridanc.on.ca
$3 - E.Watters@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK

**********************

LOT # 4 - LARGE BOOKS

THE TRAVELLER BOOK - hardcover, slight cover scuffing, otherwise very good
shape.
$16 - ecy@umich.edu
$15 - sudet@well.com
$12 - dbolack@galaxy.galstar.com

THE TRAVELLER ADVENTURE - very good shape.
$13 - gxh8@psu.edu
$12 - ztravlr@icon-stl.net
$12 - dbolack@galaxy.galstar.com


**********************

LOT # 5 - SMALL BOOKS

BOOK 5 (High Guard) - very good shape.
$3 - vslimm@sky.net

BOOK 6 (Scouts) - very good shape.
$10 - aholt@cnj.digex.net
$4 - bri@teleport.com
$3 - ztravlr@icon-stl.net
$3 - A.S.Lilly@hedera.bnr.co.uk

SUPPLEMENT 1 (1001 Characters) - cover scuffing.
$2 - E.Watters@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK
$2 - A.S.Lilly@hedera.bnr.co.uk

SUPPLEMENT 4 (Citizens of the Imperium) - cover scuffing.
$4 - ztravlr@icon-stl.net
$2 - E.Watters@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK
$2 - A.S.Lilly@hedera.bnr.co.uk

SUPPLEMENT 6 (76 Patrons) - cover scuffing.
$3 - ztravlr@icon-stl.net
$2 - A.S.Lilly@hedera.bnr.co.uk

ADVENTURE 1 (The Kininur) - cover scuffing.
$3 - ztravlr@icon-stl.net
$2 - A.S.Lilly@hedera.bnr.co.uk

**********************

RULES:

1) All bid increments $1, up to $20. Over $20, bid increments $2. Over $50,
bid increments $3. Over $100, bid increments $4.

2) Buyer pays postage, normally around $5 for UPS shipping. Buyer chooses
shipping method.

3) (You'll like this one) Once checks clear, packages will be shipped
within 7 days, or buyer will receive a 15% refund in purchase price, along
with goods. If packages are not shipped within 14 days, buyer receives a
25% refund, as well as goods.

(My last auction was *much* too big, and I had some delays in getting
packages out in a timely fashion. That should NOT be a problem this time,
nevertheless, this clause is added for the buyers' benefit.)

4) Non-North American bids will be accepted, but shipping charges may be
much higher. In some cases, EXTREMELY so. Thank the post office.

5) Payment of winning bids to arrive within 10 days of notification,
otherwise item will be offered to next-highest bidder. Payment to be made
by check or money order in US funds.

6) (Not really a rule, more like a plea) PLEASE don't bid on anything
unless you REALLY intend to purchase it! Some of the items here were
"bought" in previous auctions, and then never collected.

any questions should be sent to:

John Kovalic
4679 Goodland Park Rd.
Madison, WI 53711

(608) 222-5522

muskrat@msn.fullfeed.com

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

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 08:53:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@hollywood.cinenet.net>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: CG capabilities
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.91.960206085032.3950B-100000@hollywood.cinenet.net>


Dave Golden wrote that rather than having CG counteract 99% of a ship's
weight, his version counteracts all but a little of the gravitational
force on the ship.  My question:  what's the difference?  This isn't a
flame or anything -- I seriously don't understand how Dave's version
differs from a canonical CG lifer.  Gravitational force *is* weight.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Berry                      CompuServe cancellation ID: 11089132
cberry@cinenet.net               Don't support Net censorship!
---------------------------------------------------------------------


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

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 12:04:44 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: Discarding TNE?!, & various...
Message-ID: <199602061704.MAA16062@chopin.udel.edu>

In Reply to Your Message of Tue, 06 Feb 1996 05: 21:13 EST
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 12:04:43 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>


:  But you have never said that you don't think TNE will not be
:  supproted.  You have said that you don't want TNE to be supported.
:  Please don't go back on your original argument now.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:
: Spare me. It's typical that you would want things to stay frozen.
: I've already stated that, to me, putting the TNE setting lower in
: priority than the CT ot MT one is equivalent to no support so please
: try to pay closer attention.

Uhm no.  That's not what sparked this discussion.  Please recall, if
you will that you said to do away with TNE.  Afterwards you said to
just give it low priority which would achieve the same effects as no
support.  I have been paying attention.  Please check the archives if
you must to make sure that we're talking about the same thing.

:  As for MM's resources, we don't know what resources he has available.
:  The argument isn't one about viability, it's about your attitude to do
:  to other players what GDW did to you.  Pardon me if I tend to find
:  that hypocritical.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:
: Well the feeling is quite mutual. If the TNE setting was viable then
: GDW would still be around. But it failed & it's time to get back to
: what was successful. Your impractical, "let's support *everything*
: with limited resources", strike me as somewhat hyposcritical inasmuchas
: *that* would be the fastest way to put Traveller under for good. That
: doesn't sound like "supporting traveller" to me.

Oh god no!  Do you have any idea what the gaming market is like right
now.  From your post it would seem not!  Your rationalization is so
way off it's ridiculous.  First, if you really think that TNE was the
only reason GDW went under, then you're absolutely crazy.  Look at the
gaming market.  In the past month, one major player (GDW) has gone
completely out of business, another has cut their entire line of RPG's
(Wizards of the Coast), another company which is relatively successful
(White Wolf) laid-off a bunch of people, others are selling off rights
to some previously popular games, smaller companies have had to revise
their entire release schedule and pare it down (BTRC, Grey Ghost, even
WEG), and still others have gone on hiatus until this trend dies.  And
then there are still the slew of distributors that are going out of
business weekly and defaulting on what they owe the gaming companies.

Or how about rising paper and printing costs?  Just last week Omni
magazine announced that it will have to suspend publishing in a paper
format for the time being.  Look at comic books.  2.95 to 4.95 per?
Hell, I still remember the great debate about raising them to 65
cents!

As for my impractical "let's support everything" attitude, please
realize it's only based on the trends in the gaming market and not
what I feel.  That's the difference between your argument and mine.
Think I'm wrong, look at what's selling and what's not.

: No, I believe that you said that TNE should be axed completely.  I
: believe you said that there were a ton of reasons that you prefered CT
: over TNE and that's what made you judgement okay.  If I thought you
: were making a logical argument originally, do think I would keep
: flooding people's mailboxes with our trite?
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:
:  Now. Now. How in the world could have missed so much of what I posted?
:  Do you seriously mean to say that you never saw any text from me con-
:  cerning getting back to what worked? Really?

I didn't miss so much of anything that you've posted.  Please read
what I said.  You said to away with TNE for good.  I said that's no
better than what GDW did. You THEN said give it zero priority support
which in effect is similar to no support.  I then said, give it a
fighting chance with at least one sourcebook and see how it does.  You
then said that this is silly because even though you obviously have no
grasp of business markets that this would stretch resources that we
have no idea about.  I then said that you need to pick up a textbook
on economics and another on marketing.

:  No, it doesn't bother me to see someone stand up for CT.  I truly
:  believe that people should play and stand by whatever version they
:  like the best.  What bother's me is your poor attitude.  You would
:  rather have Traveller pander to you and leave others in the cold
:  rather than even think of making as broad an audience as possible
:  happy.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:
: So I'm standing by CT. And you're upset. I also find it strange that
: I didn't see you jumping up in protest when all those "if you want support
: than provide it itself" msgs came out when myself or anyone else expressed
: a desire to see more than TNE stuff before GDW went under. Maybe time for
: the 'H' word again?
:
: So you can't accept that there won't be enough money to support everything.
: Fine. Just don't expect me to buy into it.

I'm not upset that you're standing by CT.  I'm missing what you're
trying to say with your second sentence, so I'll take a guess.  You're
telling me that you find it hypocritical that I didn't say release
more than TNE stuff.  Man where the hell have you been.  I argued for
that stuff years ago!  Do you know what the answer that I got was?  Of
course you do.  GDW said to me "No".  We don't plan to, we don't
appreciate you arguing with us about our position on the matter, etc.
So when did I become a hypocrite, before or after you started paying
attention to what I post?

:  You want to talk about resources and capital.  That's real easy.  If
:  Traveller comes out in any form reminicent of ANY previous release, it
:  will be dead with the initial rulebook.  Why?  There is one hell of a
:  stigmata that hangs over the Traveller line.  Shops are weary to carry
:  it and players don't think that it compares to today's games.  Look at
:  the top selling sci-fi games of today.  Star Wars, Battlelords of the
:  23rd Century and Battletech.  Traveller has nothing in common with any
:  of them while they all have that space opera feel to them.  Go to a
:  gaming shop and ask people why they would rather spend their money on
:  these products than anything that ever carried the Traveller moniker.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: If it's not "reminescent" of earlier versions then it won't be "Traveller"
: any more than '2300AD' was. Which means in name only. This is what you
: call a desire to support Traveller? The stigmata that Trav carries is
: carried by the name. Stores will be reluctant to carry it no matter what.
: Your strategy will just repeat GDW's previous mistakes. They've already
: tried it, twice, & it failed both times. I said I wanted "Traveller",
: not something "that has nothing in common" with it but the name. It may
: as well just be dead it that case.

I didn't say that this was my position.  No where in the above do I
attribute this as my plan for Traveller.  Phil, stop confusing facts
about the Real World (tm) with what I personally believe.  When I tell
you something is my opinion, you will see words like "I think, I
believe, it appears to me, etc..."  Plain and simple, what I said is
look at what sells, look at what shop owners and distributors believe,
look at what people are and aren't buying.

I agree with you that I want Traveller.  Which rules?  Doesn't matter.
If I prefer one set of mechanics over another, I'll use them.  If I
want to use GURPS or FUDGE, I'll use it.  Do I still want the basic
system to look and feel like Traveller?  Hell yes!  Do I think that
the original black books should be reprinted verbatim?  Hell no!  Do I
think that there is a good middle ground of CT/MT that can be molded
and massaged (until the bugs and typos are gone)?  Definitely.  Do I
think that it will sell?  Not in today's market.  Maybe in a year or
two, but not until CCG's die and RPG's start to have an upswing.

:  The fact is that your version of Traveller will only appease those of
:  us (and yes, I am part of that us) that GDW angered and left high and
:  dry.  We are not enough of a market to support Traveller.  Players
:  today are looking for different things in their games.  Look at AD&D
:  with it's multiple game worlds and settings.  Look at all the
:  "Universal Systems" out there.  Gamers nowadays don't want to be
:  locked in to anything in specific.  They want generality.  They want a
:  sourcebook a month.  They want variability.  Plain and simple.  Your
:  vision of Traveller does not give them that.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: You statement about "not enough of a market", is just speculation.
: All we know for sure is that CT had enough of a market while MT had
: less & TNE didn't for sure. Which one sounds to you like it has the best
: chance of reviving Trav? "A sourcebook a month"! That's never going
: to happen. You must think MM is independently wealthy or somesuch.
: Forget it. It's never going to happen. We'll be lucky to see one era
: supported adequately & that doesn't mean a sourcebook a month. Maybe
: every 6 months. Maybe.

Oh pardon my speculation.  I only based it on what sales figures look
like.  I also based it on the diminishing RPG market.  Man, I should
really stop doing my research because it seems that it's just not
sitting well with you.  A sourcebook a month.  That sounds funny to
you.  Well, let's see.  How many people complained about how slowly
things came out for TNE?  The problem is that gamers want their game
to be supported.  You think I'm being silly.  Fine, I won't even
bother to tell you how many people blindly pick up supplements that
have their game's logo on them.  Don't let us, the discerning few,
stop the automotons that actually support the RPG market.  Players,
want consistent, timely, and (usually/hopefully) well-written
supplements.

As for MM.  As I said before he said that he is looking for a
publisher to release the game.  That means that the publisher will be
paying for this stuff to be released, not MM.  Will MM need to front
some capital and pay writers/artists/etc?  Probably.  But the
specifics of the deal are left of to MM and publisher.  No where did I
mention nor do I believe that MM should do this out-of-pocket.

: You want financial logistics.  Fine here goes.  MM needs to create the
: games and find a publisher for them.  He will not be producing them
: himself.  At least that's what he's said.  So, whoever is going to
: publish them is going to have to be willing to support them.  All the
: material for the new version does not need to come from MM.  Remember
: the heyday of Traveller when great companies made great supplements
: for the game?  That's a very viable solution to this problem.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: With the "stigmata", as you put it, that Trav carries I don't see this
: happening except on a limited shoestring basis. Too much risk. Remember
: what DGP said about producing license work before they dumped MT? It
: was a mistake all right but such reasoning isn't uncommon. And then you
: still have the "trashy license productions" syndrome that has been re-
: cently been posted in this thread. That's yet another stigmata.

Did you like DGP's work?  Why does Paranoia Press' Traveller stuff get
such rave reviews?  I think that licensing could work quite well.  It
has before for Traveller.  There are many ways, from a clause that
allows MM to refuse to allow a product to be released to forced
rewrites, etc.  It all boils down to not allowing crap to be released
(and when did anyone find any DGP products crappy?).

: You need to drop your grandiose dreams of a resurgent Traveller that
: will exceed even it's own Golden Years. It's not gonna' happen. The
: time for that is long past. GDW tried your "new markets" scheme twice
: & it failed, twice. This strategy will only bury it for good. Traveller
: needs to go back to what worked for it previosly & then build from there.
: Otherwise it may just as well be, "Traveller - AD&D", "Traveller - The
: Clans", or something else that wouldn't be Traveller at all.

It's not my new market scheme.  While Traveller - The Clans sounds
like a nice idea (trust me, I'm being sarcastic), I don't think that
will happen.  My ideas aren't to recreate the game from scratch.  Nor
are they to try to appease people who played the game 20 years ago.
There is a middle ground.  You just refuse to accept it.  You won't
even acknowledge anything I'm saying.  GDW forced a major revision
with no questions asked, no quarter (or support) given for what they
just revised.  That's the last thing I'm proposing.  And that's the
basis of our debate.  You're saying screw everyone but the CT players
and I'm saying that that isn't a viable answer in today's gaming
market.  You mistake words like "today" as meaning "produce crappy
systems, that are internally inconsistent."  When I say today, I mean
produce a Traveller for today's market.  What does that mean?  Quite
simply you will need to provide source material that people are
looking for.  Does this mean we can's use CT/MT based rules?  Of
course not.  Go to those rules, publish them.  But make sure you pay
attention to what the trends are.  Like I said enough of us have so
much Traveller stuff we don't really need more.  Especially if all it
is just a reprint of what we've already got (which in essense is what
you're suggesting).  Like I said, we need to feed everyone, not just
the privileged few.

       --Jerry

8) Jerry Alexandratos                %  "Nothing inhabits my    (8
8) darkstar@strauss.udel.edu         %   thoughts, and oblivion (8
8) darkstar@canary.pearson.udel.edu  %   drives my desires."    (8

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

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 12:06:58 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? (TNE vs. CT)
Message-ID: <199602061706.MAA16294@chopin.udel.edu>

In Reply to Your Message of Tue, 06 Feb 1996 08: 13:42 EST
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 12:06:58 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>

: Please point me to the TNE rules that lets me build or modify a starship
: without using FF&S.  You are the second to say that I don't have to use
: FF&S, but I don't see a way around it.  I can find no design squences for
: vehicals except those in FF&S.

Rob, I think what Merrick was trying to say is that you don't need to
be a slave to the rules when it comes desining vehicles for
roleplaying purposes.  Like the shoe says, just do it!

Granted, this isn't a technically canon solution, but it does allow
you to play instead of program. 8)

       --Jerry

8) Jerry Alexandratos                %  "Nothing inhabits my    (8
8) darkstar@strauss.udel.edu         %   thoughts, and oblivion (8
8) darkstar@canary.pearson.udel.edu  %   drives my desires."    (8

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

Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 12:16:01 -0500
From: Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? (TNE vs. CT)
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960206171601.00745968@TanSoft.com>

At 12:07 PM 2/6/96 -0500, Jerry wrote:
>In Reply to Your Message of Tue, 06 Feb 1996 08: 13:42 EST
>Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 12:06:58 -0500
>From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
>
>: Please point me to the TNE rules that lets me build or modify a starship
>: without using FF&S.  You are the second to say that I don't have to use
>: FF&S, but I don't see a way around it.  I can find no design squences for
>: vehicals except those in FF&S.
>
>Rob, I think what Merrick was trying to say is that you don't need to
>be a slave to the rules when it comes desining vehicles for
>roleplaying purposes.  Like the shoe says, just do it!
>
>Granted, this isn't a technically canon solution, but it does allow
>you to play instead of program. 8)

If I am just going to make it up on my own, then why do I need the rules at
all? Its kinda catch 22.  Regardless, the whole point here is that with CT,
I had a simple ship building method and I had an optional more advanced
method.  With MT, they only gave you an advanced method and TNE is the same.
At least with MT, ship building was still in the Core Rules.  With TNE you
have to have a seperate supplement to just build ships.


Rob
--
Rob Miracle (rwm@TanSoft.com)| GCS d-->--- !H s:++ !g !p au+ a34 w+ !v C++>++++
Tantalus Inc.  Key West, FL  | UU++++$ P--- L+ 3 E--- N+++ K-  W+ M-- V-- -po+
"You have a problem?  I have | Y-- t++ 5>++ jx R+++ G'''' tv+++ b D B- e++ u**
a plan!" -- Anton Devious    | h---- f r+++ n---- y++++


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

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 11:04:12 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: USL Hull landings
Message-ID: <9602061804.AA29730@Rt66.com>


> Under TNE, where Delta-V is expensive, CG is separate, efficient, and easy,
> USL designs should be allowed to land. A small 0.1G constant thrust when
> you are effectively in micro-gravity (courtesy of CG) will get you to orbit
> in no time at all. In atmosphere maneuver becomes limited to parking,
> military ops, and eccentrics. Also, CG takes minimal power by comparison,
> and you can keep it powered for upwards of 6 months, as TNE uses a 1 year
> PP Fuel baseline, as compared to CT/MT's 1 month.

I have to disagree here.  While I agree that non-streamlined ships can
do this, I disagree that "USL" ships can do this.  There is actually a
diffenence although it's subtle.  I have assumed that by virtue of
designing an Unstreamlined Hull you are saying that the craft is
incapable of operating in an atmosphere by definition.  A SL hull might
look exactly the same as a given USL hull, it is just braced for
operations in an atmosphere.  I would say that the SLing is less wind
tunnel stuff than it is bracing (the internal structure is only bracing
along the thrust axis and doesn't count for this).

This works with the canon, and still allows zepellin type ships if you
wish, you just pay the extra CRs for "streamlining."  All you need to
clear up is the definition:  "Streamlined (SL) hulls are those braced
for operations in significant gravity wells, or that require bracing for
g-loads off the thrust axis."  and, "Airframe (AF) hulls are hulls that
meet the requirements for SL hulls, but which also either generate lifting
force with their hulls (or wings) and/or are capable of X relative
velocity through an atmosphere."

Sorry, but I don't have FFS in front of me to make the AF definition
clearer.

I don't allow CG on USL hulls since they aren't braced for the loads.
That's my few credits worth, anyway.

-Merrick

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

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 11:15:05 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Why Can't We All Just Get Along?  (TNE vs. CT)
Message-ID: <9602061815.AA03158@Rt66.com>


> >The first point is already true of FFS, you don't _have_ to use it :-)
> >The second point is quite true.
>
> Please point me to the TNE rules that lets me build or modify a starship
> without using FF&S.  You are the second to say that I don't have to use
> FF&S, but I don't see a way around it.  I can find no design squences for
> vehicals except those in FF&S.
>
> I hope I missed something.
>
> Rob

Rob,

There was a :-) in there, no?  I meant that you could just use published
designs.  I was not really serious, hence the smiley.

Any small arms design will be complicated, I made Striker
vehicles a long time ago, and they were as hard (in memory) as FFS
designs.  Ships are indeed easier in HG, but not that much once you
figure out the order to do things in (which is a major problem with FFS
IMHO).

Mdrive, Jdrive, CG, Fuel, and Life Support are all simple volume based
numbers just like HG (well, the LS/CG is subsumed in the hull I guess).

PP is an iteritive thing, but it kinda was in HG as well since you can't
put in the PP til you know what you're powering :-)

Anyway, it isn't all that bad, it just isn't well organized.

-Merrick

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

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 13:38:10 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? (TNE vs. CT)
Message-ID: <199602061838.NAA23534@chopin.udel.edu>

In Reply to Your Message of Tue, 06 Feb 1996 12: 16:13 EST
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 13:38:10 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>

: If I am just going to make it up on my own, then why do I need the rules at
: all? Its kinda catch 22.  Regardless, the whole point here is that with CT,
: I had a simple ship building method and I had an optional more advanced
: method.  With MT, they only gave you an advanced method and TNE is the same.
: At least with MT, ship building was still in the Core Rules.  With TNE you
: have to have a seperate supplement to just build ships.

I see where you're coming from.  You think we should do FFS Light for
in the basic rulebook and have full-blown FFS as a separate
sourcebook.  That's a good idea.  I like it.  Makes the rulebook
central and puts the hardcore stuff in the sourcebooks.

       --Jerry

8) Jerry Alexandratos                %  "Nothing inhabits my    (8
8) darkstar@strauss.udel.edu         %   thoughts, and oblivion (8
8) darkstar@canary.pearson.udel.edu  %   drives my desires."    (8

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

Date:          Tue, 6 Feb 1996 17:56:08 +0100 (BST)
From: "M.A. Trickett" <mat3@leicester.ac.uk>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: The Debate
Message-ID: <A581771D7@daisy.le.ac.uk>

I may not be able to claim 22 years of playing around with the
system.  I can't even claim a decade.  Half a decade, maybe 7 years
tops.  However, in that time I've played around with numerous systems
(okay, not as much as Phil), some of which are good some of which are
not.  Both MT and TNE come under the category of "good" games.

Returning to CT, which admittedly I don't really know anything about,
doesn't seem like a good idea.  CT as it was, that is.  It was a
system that had its "Golden Age" because, from what I can gather, it
was one of the very few sci-fi systems around.  Then there was MT,
and lo! we were in the "Silver Age."  Less people bought the game.
TNE is the "Bronze Age," if I am to believe what is going on.
Recapturing the "glories" of the past just doesn't seem to make it,
IMHO.

The system *is* going to change, the background isn't.  Unless MM
lets everyone know just what is going to be included in Trav4, which
systems are going to have dominance etc., then why not work on the
thing that isn't going to change - The Background.

Please stop this argument.  I wouldn't even call it a debate anymore.
Everyone has their own favourite and it seems to be survival of the
oldest.  Circles, circles everywhere... no-one gets anywhere.
Someone mentioned collaborative gaming, let's go with that.

Sorry if this annoys anyone, but I would rather talk about alien
cultures, developments in technology, and so on, then talk
continually about something which I have no control over.  If someone
out there does, then feel free to tell me what's going on.

--MARK

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

Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 14:36:41 -0500
From: Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? (TNE vs. CT)
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960206193641.006fd8c0@TanSoft.com>

At 01:38 PM 2/6/96 -0500, Jerry wrote:
>In Reply to Your Message of Tue, 06 Feb 1996 12: 16:13 EST
>: If I am just going to make it up on my own, then why do I need the rules at
>: all? Its kinda catch 22.  Regardless, the whole point here is that with CT,
>: I had a simple ship building method and I had an optional more advanced
>: method.  With MT, they only gave you an advanced method and TNE is the same.
>: At least with MT, ship building was still in the Core Rules.  With TNE you
>: have to have a seperate supplement to just build ships.
>
>I see where you're coming from.  You think we should do FFS Light for
>in the basic rulebook and have full-blown FFS as a separate
>sourcebook.  That's a good idea.  I like it.  Makes the rulebook
>central and puts the hardcore stuff in the sourcebooks.

Exactly!  Thats the point I have been trying to make.  Produce core rules
that are KISS based (Keep It Simple Silly), and provide more detailed rules
on various aspects of the game.  How would TNE have been accepted if the
only section on world building would have been a "World Builders Handbook"
that was a supplement, and the only description of published UWP's were a
micro-print strung together series of one line descriptions (see TNE pg 366
StarShip listings for the little intro at the top of the Scout/Courier page
for an example that is equipment related) like they did for StarShips in TNE.

Instead of an FF&S Lite, I would just like some simple tables for common items.

      Jump  100 Ton      200 Ton       400 Ton
TL12   1    5 tons/23mcr 10 tons/46mcr 20 tons/92mcr
TL13   1    4 tons/15mcr 8 tons/30mcr  16 tons/60mcr

Ok that 400 ton J2,M2 ship costs blah blah blah Mcr.

Just another RL example.  I lost my outdrive on my boat.  Instead of coming
up with a complex specification for the outdrive, I went and ordered a
"Lower Unit for a MerCruiser 165".  The dude at the Marina said "Ok, that
will be $1500 bucks".

In Traveller terms, I cant go to TNE (and somewhat so with MT) and say to
the players "Ok that Pirate took out your Jump Drive, you need Xmcr to fix
it" without doing work that will typically break the flow of the adventure.
Nothing hurts a role playing session more than the GM stopping to spend 5
minutes looking up a rule or a spell or whatever.  Mean while the players
start talking about other things, and then it takes a while to get the game
going again.

The way I see it, we are all pretty much in the same boat:

     We want to maximize our investment in old Traveller Stuff
     We want a rule system that is simple but extensable (i.e. simple core,
        complex supplements)
     We want more background stuff

Rob
--
Rob Miracle (rwm@TanSoft.com)| GCS d-->--- !H s:++ !g !p au+ a34 w+ !v C++>++++
Tantalus Inc.  Key West, FL  | UU++++$ P--- L+ 3 E--- N+++ K-  W+ M-- V-- -po+
"You have a problem?  I have | Y-- t++ 5>++ jx R+++ G'''' tv+++ b D B- e++ u**
a plan!" -- Anton Devious    | h---- f r+++ n---- y++++


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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 583
***************************
