Traveller-digest       Tuesday, June 17 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1433



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Traveller PBEM Game looking for players.
Re: PE Starport / Infrastructure costs
Re: PE Starport / Infrastructure costs
Re: Quick Physics Question
Re: Quick Physics Question
Core Subsectors
Re: Re: Alien Races (was Pocket Empires)
Re: Psi Institutes
Re: PE Starport / Infrastructure costs
Re: A challenge for you all!!
Fwd: Thoughts on Traveller 4.5 (?) Character Generation...
Anomalies Annoyance - an end to Starbases and TL14 gear
Re: Game Design

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 15:24:24 -0400
From: "Scott Spieker" <scspieker@ncweb.com>
Subject: Traveller PBEM Game looking for players.

I am hosting a PLAY by EMAIL game of traveller. This adventure/campaign has
a web site for assitance in demonstration of printed material.  If you are
interested, please check out:
http://ww3.ncweb.com/scspieker/traveller/home.html

This site will explain the Laurenthian Shield Gambit adventure.  If you are
interested in joining the gang, then send me an e-mail, and a character. 
If you would like a character supplied, then please state that you need
one.

The game uses the T4 rules, but is placed in the setting of the rebellion
within the Spinward Marches - 1120

Thanks,
Scott Spieker
scspieker@ncweb.com

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 12:22:21 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: PE Starport / Infrastructure costs

At 05:54 PM 6/17/97 +0100, you(Who?) wrote:
>>But how playable is a system that makes the bulk of your planets lousy
>>investment prospects and a very few of the planets amazing investment
>>prospects?

Agreed, fully.  A low pop planet is a good investment, if you have only a
small amount of resources.  You can make a planet of 5000 people a pretty
major force in an area three tech levels below it.

(Anders?)
>Agreeing with the quoted poster about the infrastructure weirdness I'd like
>to add another questionmark:
>When generating Resources for systems you get bonus for Industrial and
>minuses for NonIndustrial. IMHO either Ind/NonInd is irrelevant to
>resources or you should give NonIndistrial a plus and Industrial a minus...

I altered my own system to drop certain trade codes as determined by the
physical stats of the world, and instead to make them society
determinations.  What was considered In in old traveller is now a high
infrastructure rating, and as soon as I get my Python script finished that
will produce new UWPs from old ones for the Galaxy at large, I will release
it.

I formerly kept ones like Ag, Ba, Hi, Ic, Lo, Na Wa, Va, and so on, as they
are useful determinations derived from the UWP.  Ri, Po, In, and Ni were
not related to the stats of the world, imho, and were determined instead by
DM intervention.  I am now considering making In and Ni determined by the
Infrastructure rating, and perhaps Ri and Po determined by the culture
rating.  While this would not have been the system I would have used, I can
live with it, and I can see some definite benefits.  FWIW, I would then
have to see if we want an alternative factor or trade code, like Type a vs.
Type B personalities.  There are two issues after all - how developed is
the infrastructure, and how hard do people work with the cool toys - I
could argue that Culture and Infrastructure cover both.

I am going to use the approach that all infrastructure and starport types
cost on a per population basis.  The costs in the book look okay for pop 9
worlds, so I just need to fiddle a bit.

(Note: this means that when population comes in or leaves, you will find
infrastructure and such changing.  I can live with a pop 6 In world
becoming a pop 7 Ni world because of a flood of unskilled labor, and lack
of resources to build the required infrastructure.  Resources and culture,
I suspect, do not change with pop, but the cost to maintain them do, and so
an influx of poor or rich people could change culture.)

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:04:14 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: PE Starport / Infrastructure costs

> When generating Resources for systems you get bonus for Industrial and
> minuses for NonIndustrial.

Industrial worlds are better able to exploit the resources of the planet (in 
the same whay that space faring races are better able to exploit the asteroid 
belt than TL 3 worlds!).

Simon

PS: is there an errata of PE already?  My Trade Code Table on shows a +2 for 
In and no modification for Ni when determining resources.

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:04:13 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Quick Physics Question

> This is not the way I understand that it works.  The apparent paradox 
> of orbital mechanics is that you have to slow down in order to go 
> faster and you have to speed up in order to go slower.

It gets more confusing when you look at a Hohmann transfer between orbits.

You need to speed up to leave your initial (inner) orbit, which puts you on an 
elliptical transfer orbit.  At the "top" of your elliptical orbit you are going 
quite slowly, so you need  to speed up again to move into the new (outer) orbit.

As far as the ship is concerned, it has only ever used its M-drive to increase 
its speed, but at the end of the day, it is in a higher orbit with a lower 
speed!

When you look at the energy needed to transfer to a higher orbit, it makes more 
sense that you always need to "speed up" to move to a higher orbit ... the 
counter-intuitive aspect is that after all this speeding up, you are going 
slower than when you started.

Simon

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:04:21 +0100
From: Simon Early <sre@taz.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Quick Physics Question

>You slow the station. Which puts it in a higher orbit! I'm not
>kidding. Consider that a satellite at a 100 miles up orbits earth in
>90 minutes, but the moon at 250,000 miles orbits in 29 days.
 
I think you are in error.  
Kinetic + potential energy for a stable orbit = -GMm/(2r)
 
This means that for a stable orbit further out you need to add 
energy to the station.  Accelerating in the opposite direction to the 
station's orbital velocity will reduce the (both kinetic and total) 
energy of the station.
 
 
As an extreme example, consider the ship using its M-drive for long 
enough to completely counter the orbital velocity.  The station will 
rapidly plummet to the planet surface - it will not move to an 
infinitely 
distant orbit (which is required for a stable orbit at zero orbital 
velocity).
 
Orbit transfer (according to "Orbital Mechanics" by John E Prussing and 
Bruce A. Conway, Oxford University Press, 1st ed 1993, ISBN 
0-19-507834-9) is usually accomplished by a minimum fuel two-impulse 
circle-to-circle transfer referred to as a Hohmann transfer (p106 of 
said text).  The first impulse (period of acceleration) transfers the 
object from its circular orbit into another (usually elliptical) orbit. 
 The object moves along the elliptical orbit until it is time for the 
second impulse, which transfers the object from the elliptical orbit to 
the new circular orbit.  If your impulse is wrong, you can transfer to 
parabolic or even hyperbolic orbits, which may end in ultimate 
disaster!  

<fx: later>
I've studied my Hohmann orbit info a bit further.
 
>> 1.) The station suffers a sudden, sharp deceleration, dropping it 
>> below orbital velocity.  The station's orbit begins to decay.
 
The answer to Mike Lee's query seems to be:
The space station will move into an eliptical orbit.  Due to the 
relatively small change in the stations velocity (3m/s change compared 
to around 10,000 m/s original velocity), the eccentricity of the orbit 
will be small and can probably be ignored for most purposes (other than 
a TNS item and a fine).
 
When the space station has completed one orbit, a small impulse of 3 
m/s opposite to the initial upset will set the space station back into 
its intended orbit.
 
 
Simon Early
 
PS : could some kind soul please comment to this message with a "hello 
Simon", as I've had problems posting to the TML.

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:31:19 -0500
From: tim Reynolds <tim@valhalla.gpasf.com>
Subject: Core Subsectors

Hi

I was woundaring if anyone or several of you can help me. I am trying to
find the names of all the subsectors of Core.  I remember that when i played
CT many of ages ago there were subsector names.  I really need them for a
game so can somebody give them to me.

Thanks in advance

Tim


Tim Reynolds
Strategic Forecasting
504-276-5510(work)
tim@valhalla.gpasf.com(work)
tim@premier.net(home)

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

Date: 17 Jun 1997 22:02:34 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Re: Re: Alien Races (was Pocket Empires)

>Minor alien races are "minor" that is why they shouldn't be used much.
>They exist and should be used for a bit more colour but if they appear
>everywhere you go then they will no longer be minor.

I disagree with this.  Minor races didn't discover jump drive on their own. 
The term originated with the Vilani, who used to to reinforce the power
structure.  Think of a major race as being a Great Power and you have a good
analogy.

For example, look at East Indians.  You find them all over the world, and
have for a long time, even though India wasn't a power (or even a country)
for much of that period.  How?  The British 'imported' them as servants, and
others came along as shopkeepers, in the 19th century.

Some minor races will be small and localized (especialy those with non-human
life support requirements).  Others will be widespread.  Look at the way Newt
bureaucrats flourished in the Third Imperium, for example.

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 15:17:42 -7
From: "Stuart L. Dollar" <sdollar@goodnet.com>
Subject: Re: Psi Institutes

On 17 Jun 97 at 15:10, Bill Prankard wrote:

> I see the question of Lighning Calc has been covered, so I won't go there.

See my response in another post.  If you don't get it let me know, 
and I'll repost it.

> It seems to be that if you can find/afford to train at a  five star psi 
> institute(QI=5), your difficulty level for any basic task is automatic?  Now 
> I see the need for Psi points (personaly I always thought TNE's psi rules 
> made them a bit too powerful anyway <G>)

When I wrote this section, I basically wanted the best of the 
institutes to be akin to the old CT/MT psi abilities.  Hence, 5 star 
institutes are automatic, as they were in CT & MT.  

> Another question, there doesnt seem to be any description of what exactly 
> the levels for the different psi departments are for.  Is the number the 
> highest skill level one can learn in that discipline?

It is the highest skill level that a character can learn in that 
discipline.

Thank you for the kind words. :-)

Stu
Stuart L. Dollar                sdollar@goodnet.com
- ---------------------------------------------------
Co-Designer of Products for Marc Miller's Traveller
Including the upcoming release:  Psionics Institutes 
- ----------------------------------------------------
"Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God."
- -Thomas Jefferson

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 17:46:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: PE Starport / Infrastructure costs

On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, Simon Early wrote:

> PS: is there an errata of PE already?  My Trade Code Table on shows a +2 for 
> In and no modification for Ni when determining resources.

The only errata for PE is the two tables I've posted a couple of times 
before.  I've sent them to webmaster@imperiumgames.com, but they haven't 
been put on the web site yet. :(

Here they are again...


ALIEN RACE TABLE

Roll  Race Type
 2-9  Minor human race.
10-11 Minor alien race.
 12+  Major alien race.


PARTNER TABLE

1D  Social Rank  Homeworld
1   Soc +1       Same World
2   Soc +0       Same World
3   Soc +0       Neighbor World
4   Soc -1       Neighbor World
5   Soc -2       Another Pocket Empire
6   Soc -1D      The Imperium


The trade code table is correct, BTW.  Stu and I went back and forth on 
those things so many times...yeesh.  When we were designing Economics and 
Planetary Development (our two chapters for PE), we spent all night every 
night, and all day every weekend, working on it; about half the time 
together on IRC, and half the time alone, writing and coming up with 
possible solutions to the many issues.  We argued things back 
and forth for hours and hours, trying to examine every possible way of 
looking at things.  We tested the ones that seemed good, using about 50 
sample worlds provided by Marc (this was in the days before First Survey 
was released - oh, how we wished for FS to be out while we were designing 
PE!).  Finally, we came up with something worth playtesting.

We brought the playtesters in, and things changed again and again.  Those 
poor people were getting 100K emails every day, sometimes two, three, or 
four times a day, as things changed based on their feedback.  At last, 
there came a time when it was too late to make more changes, so we took 
the results and spent the last bit of time weaving things together into a 
coherent whole.

Oops, sorry, went on a trip down memory lane. <G>   Fortunately, since 
those early days after the changeover, the entire design team has gotten 
IG on schedule (as you've seen from the recent spurt of products), so the 
amount of design time we have has greatly increased. Hopefully, we'll 
never have to work under the brutal schedules we had for M0 and PE. 

I don't really recall the reason for not having a Resources DM for Ni.  
As I mentioned, we went over this stuff so many times...I can recall 
various arguments and lines of reasoning, but darned if I know which one 
we chose for this issue.  Perhaps it had to do with Ni being defined as a 
world with Pop 6-.  Or, it might have been something else entirely.  I 
shoulda kept the 2' tall stack of notes and drafts that I accumulated 
during the design phase.

Anyway, the table correctly reflects the final manuscript we turned in.


- -Joe, who is now really, really going to stick to design and keep off of 
TML for a bit.
______________________________________________________________________________
Joseph E. Walsh  |  Game Designer for Marc Miller's Traveller
_________________|  Atari 1200XL and Apple IIGS User and Programmer

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 19:14:50 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: A challenge for you all!!

>"http://www.netins.net/showcase/theakins/andy/trav/trav.htm".  Paul Owensby's
>had deckplans for his 200-ton Guppy Class Far Trader, howerver, I can't seem
>to find his web page anymore, Paul?.  

Hmmm... Sorry, my latest research into the Unified Handwave Theory caused a
large
portion of Pan-Imperia's Shipyards to temporarily blink out of existence. 

We're back now. <g>


**********************************************************
Paul Owensby (pauld@athens.net)                   
CEO and Chief Bottle Washer of ValuJump Lines
"So Economical, You'll Think You're Part of the Crew" (tm)
Pan-Imperia: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Paul_Owensby/

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 19:33:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: FKiesche@aol.com
Subject: Fwd: Thoughts on Traveller 4.5 (?) Character Generation...

Greetings:

Since Marc forwarded his reply to my thoughts on CharGen to the list (and I
hadn't sent the coments to the list to begin with!), here are my original
comments!

Fred Kiesche
(FKiesche@aol.com--NEW ADDRESS!)

- --begin paste--

Marc:

Just a few thoughts on character generation...

(1) College and Advanced Degrees:

     a) Military/merchant personnel could be sent to college and advanced
schools during the course of a career. This would recommend the trend in US
military today where officers (and even NCO's) are requested/required to get
BA, BS, advanced degrees.

     b) Characters should be able to get additional BA/S, MA/S, PhD level
degrees as long as they've got the credits and they make the rolls!

     c) Provision for on-the-job training, other slow accumulation of skills.
Example, the USMC now has a professional reading program. All levels must
read a variety of books, I think between 1-4 a year. These books range from
military fiction (Starship Troopers!!!!) to "self help (The Seven Habits of
Effective People!!!!) to biography, history, etc. If a character had a hobby
of studying Vilani archaeology, for example, and spent the "dead time" while
in jumpspace reading about this, maybe in a four year term they would get a
level of Archaeology (Vilani)...

     d) Should get additional skills through experience...I think from some
of your postings that you are doing this...

(2) Cross Training: In the US military (at least when I was in), advanced
officers had to do some cross training in another branch. For example, Air
Force pilots (if I remember correctly) might be picked to learn carrier ops.
Army might cross-train with marines. Something along this line might be good
if you are in a military career long enough...say Lt. Col (or equivalent
level) Army might be sent to be a staff officer for a term in the Navy in
order to learn logistics, fleet movement, grand tactics, etc.

(3) Nobles: Should have a chance to acquire skills from any other branch. For
example, basic gunnery, leadership, tactics from Army...kind of sending the
future leader off to get exposed to the common folks, get some skills, etc.,
become a better leader. Take a look at the (UK) Royal Family...

(4) Rewards for Heroism: In addition to medals, rewards for heroism might
include promotions or being sent to special service schools, e.g., a grunt
that gets a MCUF gets sent to commando school as she showed special
leadership under extreme circumstances, and displayed the initiative needed
by a commando...

(5) Rewards for Merchants: Let's face it, a merchant won't get a MCUF.
However, merchants should get something...let's say while serving on a ship,
a apprentice makes a really good deal. At the end of the term of service,
they might receive a cash bonus equal to x% of that deal they closed...

(6) Scouts: Another service that needs pumping up on rewards. Maybe exemplary
service would be rewarded with installment payments going towards your
retirement ship benefit...

Cowabunga.

Frederick Paul Kiesche III
(FKiesche@aol.com)

"Travel in the company of this Ebokin delegation will be, to say the least,
trying. Like most of her kind, the Fifth Speaker to the Lawless is a
petulant, self-centered, and demanding individual."

- --The Traveller Adventure, GDW, 1983

- --end paste--
- ---------------------
Forwarded message:
Subj:    Thoughts on Traveller 4.5 (?) Character Generation...
Date:    97-06-16 05:38:25 EDT
From:    FKiesche
To:      CardSharks,FarFuture,FKiesche

Marc:

Just a few thoughts on character generation...

(1) College and Advanced Degrees:

     a) Military/merchant personnel could be sent to college and advanced
schools during the course of a career. This would recommend the trend in US
military today where officers (and even NCO's) are requested/required to get
BA, BS, advanced degrees.

     b) Characters should be able to get additional BA/S, MA/S, PhD level
degrees as long as they've got the credits and they make the rolls!

     c) Provision for on-the-job training, other slow accumulation of skills.
Example, the USMC now has a professional reading program. All levels must
read a variety of books, I think between 1-4 a year. These books range from
military fiction (Starship Troopers!!!!) to "self help (The Seven Habits of
Effective People!!!!) to biography, history, etc. If a character had a hobby
of studying Vilani archaeology, for example, and spent the "dead time" while
in jumpspace reading about this, maybe in a four year term they would get a
level of Archaeology (Vilani)...

     d) Should get additional skills through experience...I think from some
of your postings that you are doing this...

(2) Cross Training: In the US military (at least when I was in), advanced
officers had to do some cross training in another branch. For example, Air
Force pilots (if I remember correctly) might be picked to learn carrier ops.
Army might cross-train with marines. Something along this line might be good
if you are in a military career long enough...say Lt. Col (or equivalent
level) Army might be sent to be a staff officer for a term in the Navy in
order to learn logistics, fleet movement, grand tactics, etc.

(3) Nobles: Should have a chance to acquire skills from any other branch. For
example, basic gunnery, leadership, tactics from Army...kind of sending the
future leader off to get exposed to the common folks, get some skills, etc.,
become a better leader. Take a look at the (UK) Royal Family...

(4) Rewards for Heroism: In addition to medals, rewards for heroism might
include promotions or being sent to special service schools, e.g., a grunt
that gets a MCUF gets sent to commando school as she showed special
leadership under extreme circumstances, and displayed the initiative needed
by a commando...

(5) Rewards for Merchants: Let's face it, a merchant won't get a MCUF.
However, merchants should get something...let's say while serving on a ship,
a apprentice makes a really good deal. At the end of the term of service,
they might receive a cash bonus equal to x% of that deal they closed...

(6) Scouts: Another service that needs pumping up on rewards. Maybe exemplary
service would be rewarded with installment payments going towards your
retirement ship benefit...

Cowabunga.

Frederick Paul Kiesche III
(FKiesche@aol.com)

"Travel in the company of this Ebokin delegation will be, to say the least,
trying. Like most of her kind, the Fifth Speaker to the Lawless is a
petulant, self-centered, and demanding individual."

- --The Traveller Adventure, GDW, 1983

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 15:39:48 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Anomalies Annoyance - an end to Starbases and TL14 gear

I just got Psionic Institutes, which was quite well put together, and TLWH,
which I enjoyed the read through.  I also got Anomalies, and I do not yet
have a strong opinion.  While parts of it looked good, there were two
points that really pushed my hot buttons.

I seem to recall a shouting match here recently ended up with people
generally deciding that the TL14 gear in EA was mostly good guesswork, or
the occasional differential tech level.  The consensus seemed to be that
there likely were not TL14 artifacts in the RoM, or that if there were,
they were way experimental devices a TL or more above what the planet knew
how to make.

(I know there will be no TL14 gear in the RoM in my own personal game.  I
am not going to play RCS in M0 by making the Rule of Man have regular
deposits of TL14 gear.)

I noted that in Anomalies, though, a major plot point was some recovered
TL14 gear, plus the hints that there were a lot more examples of it.  This
is not the occasional millennia old battered prototype, this was working
gear, and implications of even more of it.

I just hate that.

Yo, IG, if you want to make TL14 the RoM high point, feel free, but would
you mind telling us when it occurred?  The outlines I have seen do not give
a date for the RoM getting to TL14.  Also, could you put together a
writer's guide to tell all the people working in this stuff that this is/is
not common.  I cannot blame the authors, as Greg Porter put this in EA, and
was never told that this was incorrect by an official source, but this is a
consistency problem.

On another note, I seem to recall running across the term Starbase in
Anomalies, much like an official adventure in JTAS.  Given that the
official term is Starport, I am a bit vexed.  Once again, make an explicit
statement to the authors that this is not the Star Trek RPG, and that they
should at least get the terms right.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 17:00:35 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Game Design

Joe, I am going to jump down your throat for a bit.  In theory, this is
meant as friendly.  We will see how I come across.

At 12:26 PM 6/17/97 -0500, Joe Walsh wrote:
>Regarding all the discussions of various rules that are "broken," from 
>task systems to design systems to Infrastructure costs, to everything 
>else, I don't quite know how to respond without further inflaming the 
>issue.  I've stated the reasoning for the stuff I was involved in, so 
>I'll just speak my peace here and leave it at that.

Fair enough.  I will state mine as an avid customer.  I also will try to
present a case for why IG needs to commit to errata and fixups.  Commit in
terms of actual money and contracts with designers AFTER the products ship.

[the ideal world presented, and the real world contrasted...]

Agreed, without reservation.  Life is a game of limited resources.

>We all like to come up with better rules; that's part of role-playing, 
>and always has been.  I can't think of a single rule in Traveller that 
>has been universally accepted as the Right Thing.

Yep.  In fact, this process is what makes the games better.  Every player
has a different take on what works, and what makes sense.  For example, I
find Traveller technology progression inherently silly, but I like to game
in and read books in that kind of universe.  As a result, I spend a fair
amount of time trying to make it make sense.  If you do not, then you will
tweak the system in other ways.

Each time a product comes out, heavy discussion ensues.  This leads to
better product.

>  That's good; that's 
>how things improve.  Nothing is ever perfect, but we can make it closer 
>to perfect if we keep working at them, even after they've been published.

There is an implied second half to that, which not under designer control -
getting improvements folded back into the master document.  For example,
look at M0.  This was a truly killer product.  It had lots of good detail,
a bunch of ideas, and then you got stabbed by having to use different data
that invalidated your own.  It also had a missing deckplan which was never
put up on the Web site.  These two issues are very different.  The second
is in the category of errata, and I suspect there is a good day worth of
such errata that you should put together at IG's behest - wording changes,
clarifications, and so on.  EVERY document has those, and it is usually not
a lot of work to put it together IF the publisher wants to.  What they
cannot do is pay you a flat fee, and then expect you to do this out of the
goodness of your heart - your skill is what you get paid for, and they
should be willing to pay the designer to use that skill for fixups.

Fixing the problems in M0 caused by FS data would take a lot longer.  At
that point, you need to consider a second product, and this is a completely
different thing.

When I refer to fixups, I am not talking about major rewrites, just
implementing the tweaks that you are well aware would be nice.  Resetting
it and rewriting major pieces might be nice, and is appropriate for a new
book, but this is a different idea - minor in-version revisions.  Some
publishers do them, and the quality of their products just goes up with
each release, as the standards get ever higher.

Now that we are clear on the scope of revision I am talking about, lets
move to PE, another very good supplement.  Despite having just gotten three
new supplements in the last week, I am still reading through PE, because I
find it very interesting, and I also find the core very solid.  Disagreeing
with the decision to base infrastruture cost on size, rather than pop, is a
quibble - the core flow seems to work about right.

...

>But, I think it's counter-productive to complain to the designers who 
>read the mailing list.

Yes and no - whiny complaints about "shoulda done it that way" are of
little use, but there are only two groups out there we can talk to that
influence future products - designers and IG.  Designers listen, and also
often remember.  Designers are also the people who should be tapped to fix
anything, so it is our interest to get buy-in from the designer.

>  By the time the product is released, it's too 
>late for the designer to do anything about it.

It is too late for the designer to do anything about it for this release of
this product, but I have to hope that there will be other releases, columns
in JTAS, and re-releases of products with bits fixed up.  If IG products
are buy and forget, or only sell to someone who has not seen them, then
they are doomed.  Instead, IG needs products to be so good that after my
players read them, they want their own copy.  Pocket Empires, BTW had that
happen, as did Psi Institutes and Central Supply.  I expect the M0 campaign
will as well.

One way to do that is product iteration.  The publisher has to be willing
to contract after the fact for fixups, errata, and so on.  Assuming IG
wants to do this, then it is very important for us to make sure the
designers are willing to make the minor changes talked about, or at least
agree with what needs alteration.

...
>The why's and wherefore's are no 
>longer important; either the product stands up on its own, or it 
>doesn't.  No amount of discussion, here or anywhere else, will change 
>that.

The whys do matter, though.  If Marc feels that stat dominates skill, or
you feel that a class A starport costs a gazzilion CR for a pop 3 world,
then you have a reason, and if we know the reason, we still may disagree,
but at least then, it is in black and white.  Further, if it is a
contentious issue, like stat-skill tradeoffs, you can toss in a sidebar in
some revision that says "Stats are more important.", and then we have games
filled with wunderkids, or house rules, but at least then people do not
think the designers are doofuses.  They know you considered the issue, and
rejected it for a reason.

A system that fulfills the designer's goals is better than one that does
not.  A comment that the PE system does not work for more than a hundred
worlds because certain costs should be nonlinear, but are expressed
linearly for play purposes is enough to keep some of the wolves at bay, and
to encourage a JTAS article on nonlinear starports costs.

This, of course, assumes that what is written will become canonical.  That
people will refer to it in future products.  I think that should always be
the goal, and as designers, you need to have that goal.  You can only
really have it, though, if IG _also_ has it.  If they are committed to
always having the document for PE, second printing with folded in errata,
plus the errata itself, all contracted for from the designer, then you can
afford consistency.  If they do not, then it costs you money to be worried
about consistency.

>  The marketplace will determine whether that designer's work is 
>good, and, indeed, whether that designer will be allowed to continue 
>designing.  Either way, the message will be loud and clear.

It is never final, though.  If I do not like the skill system, and whine
about stat vs. skill, then there is a chance that a future product may be
designed taking my comments into account.  Further, future designers are
going to have at least heard my take on various issues.  They may not
agree, but they will certainly not be ignorant of it.

>To me, the right thing to do if one isn't happy with the rules as 
>published is to come up with something better, and share it around.

Agreed.  It is nice, though, if we feel that the fixes have a chance of
legitimacy, which JTAS and other IG organs should exist for.  For example,
if IG says straight out to you, the designer, that they are going to hire
you for a day, or a week, two months after the product ships for whatever
errata and changes you want to make, then it will make you that much more
likely to make use of some of these suggestions.  It also makes people
experiment with the system, if they know they might see the fixes they
liked in print, and perhaps got a mention.

[anecdotes of JW doing this before T4]

>Everyone here on TML is very capable, and very willing to kick ideas 
>around and find ways to improve them.  I encourage you to find 
>improvements for the published rules, and share them around for comment 
>and criticism. Someday, those rules will be, if not _the_ Right Thing, 
>very close to it.  Then, either publish those rules in JTAS, or offer 
>them the next time the product comes up for revision.

Agreed, save for one point.  We are not consulted when the rules are coming
up for a revision, and it seems like they do not allot significant post
production time to the products for testing, and I believe that all
products do need testing.  This is not the designer's responsibility - they
have presumably already playtested what they can, and now it needs a
slightly larger test group that is not in direct contact with the designer.

Further, there is no process by which IG takes in such ideas post release
short of a JTAS article.  I do not think "Starports are proportional to
population" really has enough heft for a JTAS article, but it certainly
should be an issue that IG knows about, and that they have a process in
place to find out about opinion on it.

Anything that we, or you, can do to encourage IG in taking time and in
having new channels is a Good Thing.  It means that the older products
improve along with the newer ones, and that everyone's standards can go up.

Hopefully, the above was not seen as a flame, just a suggestion about how
IG could improve the lives of players, designers, and themselves.

Scott
Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu   http://users.deltanet.com/~fuz
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment 
results" - Calvin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1433
***********************************
