Traveller-digest      Saturday, June 14 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1426



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: [T97#1421] Re: Hydrogen Bubbles...
EDU is absolute.  (was Re: T4.1 Char Gen Checklist)
Re: T4.1 Char Gen
T4.1 Chargen:  Rolling for skills
Re: T4/CT/MT task levels
Re: T4.1 Chargen:  Rolling for skills
Re: Scenario - Generation Ship
Re: Advanced CharGen System
T4.1 Chargen: Increasing Skill points
Boarding Action
Trade Classifications
5th Frontier War & Invasion Earth
Mega-Oops.
Re: T4.1 Char Gen Checklist and FS repair!
Re: T4.1 Char Gen Checklist
Re: T4.1 Char Gen Checklist and FS repair!

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 97 15:59:00 -0500
From: jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN)
Subject: Re: [T97#1421] Re: Hydrogen Bubbles...

T::>> Why Hydrogen?
 ::>>

 [Bandwidthectomy]

T::>Well, in keeping with my idea of the spacetime bubble not quite
 ::>matching ours, there could be a risk of things getting out of hand
 ::>because of small differences (c is 2.996666e8m/s instead of 2.9979245e8
 ::>m/s for example).

 Hmmm... maybe not "get out of hand" - maybe this kind of thing
 leads to the +/- 10% in a standard jump, and if the matching
 error is maybe 2.989994e8m/s vs. 2.997..., you start getting
 misjumps - the poorer the match, the more severe the misjump
 (with a mismatch of maybe 5% difference in some specified
 constant resulting in a "destroyed" mishap from the POV of
 someone not in the ship - i.e., the ship is never seen again.
 Destroyed?  Or gated to a universe with which the bubble is
 more closely matched?  Hmmmm...).

==========================================================================
Jeff Zeitlin                                      jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com
- ---
  OLXWin 1.00b  It's only a hobby ... only a hobby ... only a

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 14:59:53 -0400
From: James Garriss <jpg@langley.mitre.org>
Subject: EDU is absolute.  (was Re: T4.1 Char Gen Checklist)

At 01:38 PM 6/13/97 -0400, you wrote:

>> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 17:40:33 -0400 (EDT)
>> From: CardSharks@aol.com
>
>> Pursuing an ED8 certificate increases your Edu to 8.
>> Going to an Academy will increase it to 9.
>> Going to Univeristy gets you an A.
>> Grad School gets you a B.
>> Honors gets you+1 Edu.
>
>   Yay!  This is a BIG improvement.  Not only does it work from a
>   game-mechanics standpoint, but it actually makes /sense/!

Heh, heh, heh.  Anyone remember the "is EDU absolute?" argument I started a
few months ago?  Looks like I won after all.

:-)

 James Garriss           Information Systems Engineer, MITRE
 jgarriss@mitre.org           http://www.cs.odu.edu/~garriss

    True Multitasking = 3 PCs and a chair with wheels.

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

Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 16:24:49 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: T4.1 Char Gen

> Kenneth wrote:
> 
> >T4 is basically a re-working of CT with a task system.
> 
> Hmm. Wasn't MT too? ;-)

Yes, but both games were based on CT--not MT based on CT and T4 based 
on MT.

CT is the source.  MT and T4 are sisters, based on the parent, CT.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 17:19:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: T4.1 Chargen:  Rolling for skills

   Hi.

> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 08:53:23 -0800
> From: Richard Hough <rdhough@orca.bc.ca>

> Now the KBv2 task system fixes this by multiplying the skill level;
> normalizing it so it has around the same contributions of points and
> variability as a characteristic. It works well for this, but what if skills
> just had point totals and variabilities like characteristics right from the
> start?

   [snip]

> What I am suggesting is that skill point totals be considered the same as
> characteristic point totals; just as an 'average' person might have a Str
> of 7 and a weightlifter have one of 14, an 'average' starship pilot would
> have a Pilot skill of 7 and an ace have one of 14.

> Not only will this fix the task problem, it is conceptually simpler because
> a certain number of points will always mean the same thing, whether used as
> a characteristic, skill, or DM.

> Comments? Is this too radical a change? I thought it was similar to how TNE
> skills worked, but I don't have that book. Are there serious problems I
> haven't considered?

   It /is/ a radical change, but I personally love it!  It could
   potentially make things alot simpler.

   Some details need to be worked out yet, though.  In T4, we add skill
   + attribute.  If we were to do that with RHv1 we'd need to roll about
   4 dice to make a routine task difficulty.  That's a fair amount of
   dice.  Of course, we could always average the (skill + attribute)/2,
   or use min(skill, attribute) and roll two dice, or whatever.  What do
   you think would work best?

   -Rob

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

Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 16:24:48 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: T4/CT/MT task levels

>    Whether the levels should or shouldn't be the same can be debated. 
>    Effectively, however, they are not the same in the two games as
>    published.  Inter-character competition is going to greatly influence
>    which skill levels are normal in any given campaign.  T4 norms are
>    much higher than CT norms, not `should be much higher', but `/are/
>    much higher'.

This is true and why the task system must be fixed--and why the level 
a skill can reach must be watched in chargen.

T4 chargen encourages skills to get to a higher point than the game 
mechanics were designed to handle.

If you have a roll, say the low berth roll where you get a +1 DM if 
you have a Medical-2 medic attending the low berther, it means two 
totally different things depending on the value skill levels have.

I'm suggesting we watch the level of a skill--keep them between 1 and 
5 (but 6's or even 7's could happen once in a blue moon).  This is 
the CT values.

Since the roll above for low berths was designed for CT, we have no 
problem giving a +1 DM to someone with a Medical-2 skill.  

Now, if we go with skill levels that can reach easily into the double 
digits, we do have a problem with that roll listed above.

If T4 is very generous in its skill awards, then a Medical-2 in CT 
would equate to a Medical-4 in T4--and a Medical-1 in CT would equate 
to a Medical-2 in T4.

This means that just about everybody who even has Medical will 
benefit from that +1DM.  It is no longer a bonus for some--but a 
given for MANY.

How do we fix that inequity?  Well, we either (1) change all the CT 
rules in T4 to go with the new skill awards (this would be a load of 
work), and the low bert DM would be something like "+1DM if Medical-4 
or higher."

Or, (2), we can keep the skill awards as they were in CT and keep all 
of the CT game mechanics the same.

This second option seems much easier to implement to me.

The problem here is that the T4 chargen system is awarding skills as 
described in option one above while the game mechanics in the book 
are run under option two above.

I'm saying, let's make it easy on ourselves and keep the CT skill 
level values.  That way, we don't have all those problems down the 
road with the CT rules that are used, word for word, in T4.

An easy way to do this is to put a skill roll in for each year of 
chargen to see if a character gets a skill.

This would still generated characters with many more skills than the 
CT basic method (1 skill per 4 years), but it would limit skills more 
than the current system does--keeping the level each skill will reach 
down and discourageing high level skills.

The result will be a character with several skills--with each skill 
ranging from 1-6.

Awarding skills automatically for every year encourages skills to 
reach the double digits--unbalancing the game in other areas (see my 
low berth example).

Bottom line is, if T4 is going to use CT game mechanics, then CT 
skill level values must also be used.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 16:24:46 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@weck.brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: T4.1 Chargen:  Rolling for skills

> This may be true in T4, but what if it wasn't true in T4.1? What if,
> instead of a skill of 3 being good enough to be called a professional, it
> required a skill of 7 or 8? Skill inflation? No, skill normalization. A
> characteristic  of 7 or 8 is average and we don't think characteristics are
> inflated, they just work off a different scale.

I'll make a leap of faith here and predict that the game mechanics in 
T4.1 won't be that much different than they were in T4.

I don't think Marc is going through the whole book changing all of 
those CT era throws.  Given this, T4 skills are still equivalent to 
CT/MT skills--a level 3 is still considered professional.


 That's the problem with the
> task system, really. When you add a characteristic and a skill level you
> are adding together things of completely different scales.

Exactly.  That's basically all I did in KBv2.0 to fix it too.  I 
multiplied the skill level by a factor to make it equivalent with the 
scale attributes are rated on.

Characteristics
> average about 8

Actually, a 7 is considered average for a normal human.  Traveller 
characters may average higher due to DMs in chargen, but they're 
supposed to be the cream of the crop.

> Now the KBv2 task system fixes this by multiplying the skill level;
> normalizing it so it has around the same contributions of points and
> variability as a characteristic. It works well for this, but what if skills
> just had point totals and variabilities like characteristics right from the
> start?

Then I'd abolish KBv2.0 because T4 would not be broken at that point.

> Exactly. If skills worked off the same scale as characteristics, adding
> them together for tasks would work. Not only that, target numbers could be
> based on skills or characteristics interchangeably. You could use either a
> skill or characteristic as a DM. A lot of the tables for converting
> characteristics to task DMs would be unnecessary because the characteristic
> would be a DM.

> What I am suggesting is that skill point totals be considered the
> same as characteristic point totals; just as an 'average' person
> might have a Str of 7 and a weightlifter have one of 14, an
> 'average' starship pilot would have a Pilot skill of 7 and an ace
> have one of 14.

Which is fine.  I'm all for it.  But, T4 would become a new game if 
you did this.  I'm not sure you are realizing what you are saying.

Right now, T4 is CT with a few tweaks.  Many of the same rules and 
throws apply.  If you made a change in the skill level value, you'd 
have to go through the whole book and fix multiple CT rules that use 
the old skill values.

T4 would become more like TNE rather than CT, and it wouldn't be as 
interchangeable as it is right now with CT (or, to a lesser extent, 
MT).

That's a pretty big change for T4 to go through at this point.  If 
they were going to do that, they should have done it before T4 was 
released.

> Not only will this fix the task problem, it is conceptually simpler because
> a certain number of points will always mean the same thing, whether used as
> a characteristic, skill, or DM.

Yes, it fixes that task problem nicely, but it also creates a whole 
host of new problems with a multitude of existing T4 (CT based) game 
mechanics.

It is a much better solution to just change the task system--like 
KBv2.0 does.

> True, because many of the the rules in T4 were taken directly from CT and
> were not even edited to be consistent. The character generation, education
> effects, skill ratings, task system, and experience rewards are all
> seriously out of whack with each other. The book is already greatly
> unbalanced, I suggest balancing it. Make 1 characteristic point = 1 skill
> point = 1 DM = 1 experience point.

Again.  Great idea.  I would be for that.  But, what you are talking 
about is a complete overhaul of the existing T4 rule book and game 
philosophy.  No longer would the game be based on CT.

I'm not sure Marc is prepared to do that.  And, one of the neat 
allures to T4 is Traveller's fall back to its roots in CT.  I 
actually like the CT influence.

> Now I realize this will require some changes, but nothing severe.

Are you kidding me?  The whole book would have to be changed.  
Multitudes of throws, based on CT skill values, would have to be 
re-worked.

If this was done, T4 would definitely be a new animal--it would be 
T5.


> I think the T4 chargen system is too stingy, not too generous. Coming out
> of chargen with a skill level of 10 should be no more unreasonable than
> getting a Dex of 10. 

Don't forget the scale difference between skills and attributes.  
With the system you are proposing above, I'd be in total agreement 
with you here.  But, with the normal, average human, his attribute is 
considered to be 7 and his skill is considered to be 2 (as you cited 
above).  If that person comes out of chargen with a level 10 Dex and 
a level 10 skill, your skill will way out balance the attribute in 
various task throws and other types of throws.

> Comments? Is this too radical a change? I thought it was similar to how TNE
> skills worked, but I don't have that book. Are there serious problems I
> haven't considered?

My notes are above.  Too radical a change?  It's definietly a good 
idea, but I don't think its a good choice for Traveller at this stage 
of the game.

We have already been given a beefed up version of CT.  The best way 
to fix the problem of the inequity between skills and attributes is 
to change the task system to something like KBv2.0 and leave 
everything else the way it is.

Otherwise, you've got a heck of a lot more work and an entirely new 
game.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 22:43:25 +0000
From: Garry Ward <Garry.E.Ward@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Scenario - Generation Ship

At 04:33 AM 6/13/97 +0000, you wrote:
>At 09:19 AM 6/12/97 EST, they wrote:
><Snip>
>>>   Anyway, he did a program for Metamorphasis Alpha...
>>
>>...This reminds me of another T$R game called Gamma World. It was sent of
>>Earth after a nuclear war...
>
>Supposedly, 18 yrs after the Warden left Earth, there was a final war
>there.  GW portrayed life on Earth after this war.  See?  T$R was looking
>out for our need for a consistent universe 20 years ago!   ;^)
>
>
>
>---------------
>Bill Rutherford
>worj@topgun.cinecom.com
>

Any my 1st ed AD & D Dungeon Master's Guide had a section on interfacing
characters from GW, MA & Boot Hill. First reference I saw in an RPG to Power
Assault Armor (-10 ac) till I got the 3 LBB. 

Garry

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 16:27:35 -0700
From: Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Advanced CharGen System

Kenneth Bearden wrote:

>The advanced chargen systems in CT/MT were great.  I really liked
>them.  They could be improved, just like I suppose everything could
>be, but they were pretty damn good just the way they are.
>
>I'd be completely happy with them being placed into T4 as is.

I think they could use a slight boost in the number of skills awarded, but
you're right that they were great. I was so dissappointed that TNE's system
did not allow you to generate the level of detail available in CT/MT.

>Otherwise, we'll end up with a situation like we had in CT/MT.  I
>really liked advanced chargen rules and want to use them, but those
>characters were much too powerful when complared to basic gen
>characters.
>
>So what do you do?  You've got a few careers that offer an advanced
>system that you really like, and you've got a bunch of careers that
>use a basic system--but the two systems don't produce similiar
>results.
>
>I'd like to see T4 re-introduce advanced chargen AND make it fit with
>the basic chargen system we already have.

Yes. In the CT days, either _everybody_ was advanced or _everybody_ was
basic. Of course, after we started generating advanced characters, *no one*
would go back to the basic system! <g>

Best,

Chris Griffen

===================================================
Keeper of the Flame. Traveller player since 1980.

http://www.cris.com/~Cgriffen/traveller/deneb.shtml


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Griffen                      Phone: (408) 527-7189
Cisco Systems, Inc.                      Fax:   (408) 527-0452
NMBU Technical Publications              cgriffen@cisco.com

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 97 19:03:55 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: T4.1 Chargen: Increasing Skill points

On 06/13/97 at 08:53 AM,  Richard Hough <rdhough@orca.bc.ca> said:

>I think the T4 chargen system is too stingy, not too generous. Coming out
>of chargen with a skill level of 10 should be no more unreasonable than
>getting a Dex of 10. With more points for skills, there is potential for
>relating skill increases to things like missions or training courses, so I
>think this scheme would be even better suited to an advanced character
>generation system. I have no quarrel with rolling to see if you get a
>skill, but using this method it just isn't necessary. If you get, say, 3
>skill points per year, an advanced character generation system could split
>that into individual missions or projects.

>Comments? Is this too radical a change?

Richard, the effect is more or less what Ken is doing with his
KB2.0...though he might not admit it.  ;-> I'm all for dropping
references to the number of times a skill has been rolled in character
generation, and instead use whole or partial target numbers.

There certainly are potential problems with increasing skill points to
the same scale as attributes.  The most obvious, to me, are the changes
in the task system it requires.  In T4.1 (as Marc has described it)
an average (7) professional (3), rolls against 10 giving a 50-50 chance
on difficult (3d6) tasks...or is that Formidable tasks..., anyway it's
probably a little tougher than most of us would like.  If you triple the
skill contribution, by any means, you get 16 giving odds on a 3d6 task of 
98%...that's probably a *lot* easier than most of us would like.

My compromise suggestion is 2 points per year, effectively doubling the
average points per skill.  Using this scale you'd get something like:

Points
  1-2  Student
  3-5  Journeyman
  6-8  Professional
  9-11 Master
 12-14 Legendary Masters

An average professional would be 7+7 and have a 91% chance on a 3d6
task. 

Of course, *I'm* using something else!  ;-> A mixture of FUDGE,
Traveller, and my own ideas that allow the use of either a FUDGE-like
task resolution or a T4-like one (but with a more difficult scale on
tasks).  Attributes still average around 8 points, like in Traveller, but
skill contibutes from 2 to 3 times as much to the target number.  The
target number (Skill+Attribute) in the table below is the level where
the PC would have an above average, but not sure, chance of success at
the corresponding Task level.

                                 Skill Level         
       Task Level   Skill Level   (Skill +
 Dice  Description  Description  Attribute)
 ==========================================
  1d6  Automatic    Terrible       3-5
  2d6  Simple       Poor           6-9
  3d6  Average      Mediocre      10-13
  4d6  Difficult    Fair          14-17
  5d6  Formidable   Good          18-21
  6d6  Staggering   Excellent     22-25
  7d6  Hopeless     Superb        26-29

...and Impossible *is* 9 or 10d6..or just plain impossible! <g> Any
character that can consistently succeed with target numbers of 30 or
above has a *truely* Legendary skill.

So, actually 3 (or more) points per year *works* for me, and if we could
convince Marc to use the above task scale and increased points I'd be
*most* pleased!  ;->

Oh, and yes, I'm sure both of our ideas are too radical for TPTB to even
consider.

Eris


- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 01:25:23 +0100
From: Bruce E J Lewis <bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk>
Subject: Boarding Action

Hi,

	My player characters are about to board another ship in deep space. What
way do any of you tend to play this, or what do players tend to find most
practical?

	I think an air / raft can achieve orbit, can't it? Does this mean that it
will also be able to operate in space, so that characters can use it to
convey themselves from one ship to another?

	Do your players tend to dock directly with the ship they are about to board?

	Do your players use a form of docking tube?

	Or do they tend to go for the good ol' vacc suit, rolling every ten
minutes for mishaps?

	I guess there are a few different ways of doing it, and what would be
interesting if anyone could tell me of some rather interesting or amusing
problems that player characters could encounter while attempting to board
another ship. For instance, has anyone hovered too near to a ship's window
or similar, attempted to smash their way in and been blasted away by the
sudden and unexpected rapid release of oxygen caused by decompression?
Thanks in advance ;-)

	See ya...


Bruce E J Lewis - mailto:bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk
Telephone - 0956-506527

	From Barkingside, within the London home county of Essex, E N G L A N D

Spurs Ticket Info can be found at - http://web.ftech.net/~legend/fixtures.htm

	Tottenham Hotspur - "Everybody will be singing..."
	Paxton Road Stand - Block R, Row 14, Seat 58

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

Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 01:25:24 +0100
From: Bruce E J Lewis <bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk>
Subject: Trade Classifications

Hi,

	If Marc's new chargen system is possibly going to take note of the
birthworld and homeworld trade classification, how about extending it to a
player character's personal history? Or maybe even combine parts of the UWP
too?

	So, we could have some tables with DM's for ranges of parts of the UWP and
different trade classifications, and each result could be something to do
with this.

	For example, if the UWP and trade class shows a breathable atmosphere, at
least 20% land, low pop, ag, how about one particular result saying that
the character did something worthwhile in his life to do with farming?

	Again, if it shows hi pop, good tech level, industrial, and one result on
a table could show that a character once wrote a particularly good program
for controlling nuclear or fusion or whatever reactors, say.

	Other tables could gives results for personal experiences, like an ice
world could have a result somewhere of 'helped rescue some stranded
explorers', and another one for personal relationships, and yet another
again for other things one encounters in life etc.

	Another possibility could be that another table could be rolled on if a
character reaches a high skill level at something; pistol-4 could gain a
certificate from the local gun club; acting-5 could make you a very famous
actor!

	And can we extend this to the character's six primary characteristics too?
If STR, END and DEX are 11 or more, the character could make a roll that
says he once won a medal at some sport.

	Bear in mind that I'm just scratching the surface of this idea, and my
apologies if the idea has been mooted before. I never saw what I guess we
could call T2 and T3, being a CT and T4-type chap!

	Some of this may be unworkable, fair enough, but does anyone think that
there could be anything in all of this?

	It is fun designing personal history, but if some reasonably extensive
tables could be produced, it would make it far easier to knock up a new
character if one just has a limited amount of time, or is stuck for ideas etc.

	Big example...(obviously needs tweaking, but displayed entirely to show
what I mean here...)

	"If your character comes from a barren world, roll two dice; on 11 or
more, consult the table below by rolling two more dice. If the result is
inconsistent with any of the world's characteristics, ignore roll and
continue with main character generation."

	2 Character discovered unusual rock formations.
	3 Character attended meeting with planet's leaders.
	4 Character helped build local aquaduct system.
	5 Character nearly died of heatstroke when 2D+2 years old (if relevant to
planet's atmosphere)
	6 Character learned to drive particularly well here; +1 to any vehicle skill.
	7 Character spent six days lost during trip (define nature of trip
specific to world UWP)
	8 Character lived in part of planet with bad weather; now hates any storms.
	9 Character nearly died of exposure when 2D+2 years old (if relevant to
planet's atmosphere)
	10 Character lost friends (1-3) or relatives (4-6) in natural disaster.
	11 Character discovered new plant form.
	12 Character discovered way of making local vacc suit design last 10%
longer in local atmosphere (if unbreathable)

	See ya...


Bruce E J Lewis - mailto:bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk
Telephone - 0956-506527

	From Barkingside, within the London home county of Essex, E N G L A N D

Spurs Ticket Info can be found at - http://web.ftech.net/~legend/fixtures.htm

	Tottenham Hotspur - "Everybody will be singing..."
	Paxton Road Stand - Block R, Row 14, Seat 58

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 22:32:17 -0400
From: Tom Wenck <twenck@erols.com>
Subject: 5th Frontier War & Invasion Earth

I recently acquired the above games at a very low price.  I soon discovered
the reason for the low price.  A few counters are missing from both games.
Would some kind soul, who owns either game, please contact me via private
email to help determine the stats for the missing counters?


Thanks much,

Tom Wenck   <twenck@erols.com>
Frederick, Maryland, USA

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 21:06:53 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Mega-Oops.

Somehow, Netscape ate our bookmark list.  If you sent me feedback on my web
site in the last few days, and included your URL, please check:

http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/travlink.html

If you aren't there, please send me your URL again, so i can rebuild what
was lost.
- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry         dberry@hooked.net   |
| Gearhead & Planetologist, Traveller since 1977 |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|************************************************|
|    "Traveller assumes a remote centralized     |
|   government (referred to in this volume as    |
|    the Imperium)...                            |
|       -Introduction, Book 4: Mercenary (1978)  |
+------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 01:15:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: T4.1 Char Gen Checklist and FS repair!

In a message dated 97-06-12 20:36:17 EDT, you write:

<< ->   Page of Six Blank Character Cards for photocopying
 In case one isn't enough to photocopy? ;-)

Imagine if I gave you one to photocopy.

Marc

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

Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 01:15:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: T4.1 Char Gen Checklist

In a message dated 97-06-12 21:08:40 EDT, you write:

<< 
 PS: You seem to be generating a lot of interest and goodwill by posting
 your outlines on the TML - I urge you to continue doing so.
 
>>

Thanks. So here's some more.

The character generation charts are now 20 pages (each a separate file) in
Word For Windows 95. If you can read them, I will email them to you. I want
feedback on usability.

I'm sorry for those of you who can't read WFW95; that's what I use and have
used it to format for the typesetter to emulate.

Marc

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

Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 01:15:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: T4.1 Char Gen Checklist and FS repair!

In a message dated 97-06-12 20:36:17 EDT, you write:

<< > (you may want to search through FS to find a world that matches). 
 About FS, how should we go about sending you our suggestions? If you 
 tell us what you agree with, it makes stuff easier for us to survey 
 and discuss. And: Will this data be in the new M:0 hardback.. This is 
 still a bit unclear to me.

>>

Alos sent me his revision of Massilia as an attached file. I have accepted
his scholarly comments and incorporated them into the "official" file. I'll
take any reasonable suggestion and consider it. I suggest you send thos
suggestions to FarFuture@aol.com so I don't miss them.

They won't go into M0 hardback. They will be incorporated into the official
files. My intention is to post that as a text file somewhere (to make it
easier to search for your homeworld).

Marc

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1426
***********************************
