Traveller-digest      Wednesday, June 18 1997      Volume 1997 : Number 1436



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Dark Star and phil the stowaway
Re: Marc Miller--Please.
Re: Game Design
Re: Tech levels and shipyards
Re: PE Starport / Infrastructure costs
T4.1 Task System - Plea and Suggestion
Psionic institutes - and B pop worlds
Re: Planet X Adventure on IRC
Tech levels and shipyards
Captive Governments
Re: Anomalies Annoyance - an end to Starbases and TL14 gear
PE Points
Re: Psionic institutes - and B pop worlds
Re: Marc Miller--Please.
Re: T4.1 Task System - Plea and Suggestion
Re: Marc Miller--Please.
THUDDD delayed
Traveller USR Pilot owners
Re: Game Design

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 11:25:46 +0100
From: Timothy.Collinson@solent.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Dark Star and phil the stowaway

>If you are worried about sending money to someone "blind", well, ask

As I learnt after lending a hand with translating the 'Water for the
Desert' adventure, this can mean a 'stowaway' in German!  Those blind
passengers always mean trouble.


>around, everyone who's ordered DS has received it -- even if the
>money seems to have gone adrift in the mail.
I can vouch for A) it's arrival and B) it's interest.

But when's DS3 coming out?  Please...?

tc
timothy.collinson@solent.ac.uk

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 12:39:35 +0200
From: Nicolas LEJEUNE <nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr>
Subject: Re: Marc Miller--Please.

John Snead wrote:

>How about using Ken's first suggestion (keep
>the same number of dice per task, but use 1/2 stat (round up) + 2 * skill.

In order to keep the same "bandwidth" you should better use 0.5*stat +
1.5*skill


- -----------
Nicolas LEJEUNE
   Engineer, Paris, France
   Traveller (TNE), and WhiteWolf RPG
   Mailto:nlejeune@suresnes.marben.fr 
   Mailto:marben@worldnet.net (Week-end only!)

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 12:37:38 +0100
From: Bruce E J Lewis <bruce@legend.ftech.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Game Design

At 17:00 17/06/97 -0700, Scott Ellsworth wrote:
>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.

	Yeah come on guys, when are we gonna have the whole product we paid for!!!


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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:49:51 +0930 (CST)
From: David Sarkies <oedipus@student.adelaide.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Tech levels and shipyards

On Mon, 16 Jun 1997, Richard Hough wrote:

> >Also, can a TL12 world perform the annual maintenance on a TL13+ ship?
> 
> Not in my campaign. First of all, it doesn't seem realistic to me. Second,
> I like to have ships of different tech levels and lower-tech ships are just
> not practical unless you use this rule.
> 

I disagree. I would rule that a TL13+ ship could undergo minor repairs in
a TL12 starport. These repairs would be simple jury rigs and would need to
be further completed in a fully equiped starport of the equivalent tech
level. This would allow players who have just emerged for a very
devastating space battle to patch up their ship so that they won't be
destroyed in their next unfortunate encounter. Mind you, in my campaign,
my players just don't seem to be able to get the brakes repaired on their
Far Trader. I may just use this rule to keep the brakes broken for a
little while longer (if I ever actually let my players get them fixed).

May the grace and peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all
David Sarkies

- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Apollo ordained my fate ... but the hand that struck my eyes were mine
alone." Oedipus Tyrannos
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 14:36:48 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: PE Starport / Infrastructure costs

>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

Yes, but as stated in the rules Resources in NOT a measure of the worlds
ability to exploit its resources but the amount/purity of resources that
are there. It is your infrastructure and TL that determine what amounts
that you are able to dig up. The only argument I can come up with for In +2
Resources is that high Resource worlds tend to develop into In worlds. IMHO
either Resources should be independent on trade classes that deal with
population or that In should give the world a -2, NonIn a +1 and LowPop or
Barren a +2 - all this reflecting how much resources have been exploited
and therefore reducing the amount left (those arguing that high TL worlds
could recycle their resources have a point but then most worlds would be
self sufficient in resources and the reason for empires/PE etc vanishes).


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 14:22:11 +0100
From: Nick Munn <N.S.Munn@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: T4.1 Task System - Plea and Suggestion

Just to echo previous comments about the T4/4.1 task system: it 
over-rates stats relative to skills, makes spectacular 
success/failure rather arbitrary, etc..  Please fix it!

I quite like Ken's KBv2.0.  However, here's another suggestion which 
eliminates those half-dice and feels a bit like MT, while being a bit 
more flexible, I hope.


Proposed new weighting: stat/3 (round down) + skill

Stat bonus ranges from 0-5, average character will have +2
Skills are such that experts will have level 3 or so

Stat.  DM
 1-2    0
 3-5   +1
 6-8   +2
 9-11  +3
12-14  +4
15+    +5

Average character has +3 (2 stat, 1 skill)
Pro character has +5 (2 stat, 3 skill)

Ken's example of med trainee has Edu 12, skill 1 = +5 whereas the 
brain surgeon would have Edu 9 (college) skill 4 = +7 or even if he 
had Edu 6 he would be +6, better than the trainee.

Scores would range from +0 to +12, in practice, with anything above
+8 being intensely rare.

Tasks:

Trivial (auto / 2D-2 unskilled)
Simple (1D-1)
Routine (2D-2)
Difficult (3D-3)
Formidable (4D-4)
Impossible (5D-5)

Target number = score (skill + stat/3) + DMs

Results:

Spectacular success if roll < skill
Success if roll < target
Marginal success/failure if roll = target
Failure if roll > target
Spectacular failure if 2 or more 6s rolled

Spectacular success and failure is only possible for Difficult (3D-3) 
or harder tasks; 

This scale is designed to have a roughly 50/50 success rate for 
different sorts of characters:

Task    50/50 chance for
1D-1    Average (stat 7, skill 1)
2D-2    Professional (stat 7, skill 3)
          or Talented (stat 12, skill 1)
3D-3    Talented Professional (Stat 9, skill 4-5)
4D-4    Superb (Stat 12, Skill 6)
5D-5    Overblown (Stat 15, Skill 8)

Many tasks can be performed slowly and carefully, with access to 
appropriate reference materials or advice, at one level of difficulty 
lower.  This does not apply to aimed fire from weapons, which gains a 
bonus based on weapon range.

For example, emergency medicine is fast and furious, and time is of 
the essence until a patient is stabilised.  After that, a slower 
procedure may be attempted to improve the patient's condition.
Thus: stabilise a patient, (3D-3), Medical or First Aid, Dex.
To diagnose damage: (3D-3) Medical, Edu
To improve condition: (3D-3) Medical, Dex (surgery) / Edu (drugs)

or if there's no time, it's going to be harder:
To improve condition (no prep): (4D-4), Medical, Dex/Edu
Only the best can do this...


Possible tweaks:

Change weighting of stat from stat/3 to stat/4 round down or stat/5 
round up (the latter being the MT task DM).

Change spectacular success criterion from roll < skill to
roll < skill *or* roll < stat.  IMO unless you're highly skilled, 
you're never going to succeed spectacularly well.

Remove "Simple" category; assume all tasks worth rolling for are 
moderately difficult to the skilled practitioner.


Any feedback welcome.


Nick

Dr. Nick Munn, Dept. of Information Studies, University of Sheffield
Tel. (0)114 222 2673, email n.s.munn@sheffield.ac.uk

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 15:32:37 +0200
From: Carlos Alos-Ferrer <alos@merlin.fae.ua.es>
Subject: Psionic institutes - and B pop worlds

        I notices that in Psionic Institutes, there's a bio for the
Queen-to-be of Shig/Massilia, precisely the Shig that is Pop. B, that I
changed to Pop. A in the revision of Massilia that Marc accepted for the
"official file", not to go in the M:0 hardback... the UPP of Shig is
re-stated, with the B pop.

        This makes me wonder... which is the definition of "official file"?
Will future authors use the "official file", or the one in FS? If future
products use the "official file" instead of the FS data, or at least avoid
using the worlds of FS that got changed, then the mistakes on FS could be
slooowly fixed. I.e., if no future supplement makes ever mention of the B
pop worlds, or just state their Pop. as A, then I can understand the use of
the official file. But, if in a future supplement Vland is used with 30,000
inhabitants, or a subsector with 9 Barren, B starport worlds is printed, or
the Answerin homeworld is put at TL 0, or a B pop world is detailed, then it
would be the same as saying that there are no errors in FS...

        Btw, to the authors of Psionic Institutes... it is stated that Shig
is a matriarchy. Remarkably, it is quite close to the matriarchal Rebin
Empire in Massilia. Did you thought of any specific relationship between
Shig and Rebin Empire, or thought that the matriarchal system in Rebin was
the cause of the one in Shig, or was it simple coincidence?
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Alos-Ferrer                          E-mail: Alos@merlin.fae.ua.es
Dpt. Fundamentos del Analisis Economico     Phn: (34) 6 5903400, Ext. 3226
Universidad de Alicante                     Fax: (34) 6 5903685
03071-Alicante (Spain)                      "Thursuth gha kvaekh?"
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:43:00 -0400
From: Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org>
Subject: Re: Planet X Adventure on IRC

Greetings,

The time of the game will not be on Monday as previously  posted.  The time 
is now to be negotiable with the players.  Just no Wendsday's or Saturday's 
tho.

Thank you.
Commander X

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:24:19 -0400
From: Mark Urbin <eclipse@ultranet.com>
Subject: Tech levels and shipyards

Richard Hough <rdhough@orca.bc.ca> writes:
>>Also, can a TL12 world perform the annual maintenance on a TL13+ ship?
>Not in my campaign. First of all, it doesn't seem realistic to me. Second,
>I like to have ships of different tech levels and lower-tech ships are just
>not practical unless you use this rule.

  The call I've made on this is yes, but you probably don't want it.

Chief Yard Dog: "We've completed your annual maintance.  The old girl was
in pretty good shape except for a few things.  Nothing we couldn't handle."

Captain: "Problems?  What kind of problems?"

CYD: "Well your heat exchanger on the fuel purifier was on it's last legs.
Accident waiting to happen really.  I didn't have the exact replacement
model available, but my guys fitted in a comparable unit.  You won't miss
that tonne of cargo space anyway."

Captain: "'Tonne of cargo space'?  By Klono's Brass Bustier!  That's a
merchant ship!  What in the Nine Levels of Nirvania did you do to chew up a
tonne of cargo space!?!"

CYD: "Well the model I had in stock is much larger than the one I had to
remove.  Then there was the incompatable cable links.  Then we had to add a
Phase II Stepdown Transformer to deal with the differences in the power
systems.  In order to get it all in, we had to cut down a section of wall
between engineering and the cargo bay.  We were going to build bulkheads
around it, but the excess heat in the closed space would have exceeded the
limits of your life support system.  Rather than take the two months to rip
out your life support and upgrade it, we just let the heat radiate into the
cargo bay.  It's big enough to disapate the heat."

Captain, now sputtering:  "You cut a hole between my engine room and cargo
bay!  This is insane.  I'm going to the Port Manager with this!"

CYD, shrugging: "Who do you think approved the work?  You wouldn't have
been approved for lift with that old unit.  I tried to order in a
replacement, but it's on backorder.  At least six months to obtain one, if
we're lucky.  The docking fees for that time wouldn't be much more than the
cost of these repairs, but you would have been grounded and not making
money during that time."

Captain looks at the hole in his cargo bay, and collection of machinary
taking up valuable cargo space.  The Captain starts to cry...


- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
eclipse@ultranet.com http://www.ultranet.com/~eclipse/  Opinions Mine!
"Driving a Hudson Hornet on the disinformation triple bypass: cruising for 
burgers & garage sales.  Hooks baited, lines entangled, roadkill cooked" 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 16:52:50 +0200
From: Carlos Alos-Ferrer <alos@merlin.fae.ua.es>
Subject: Captive Governments

        Just some thoughts, and a question.

        Government code 6 has always posed some problems for me, and some of
them are reappearing as I go through the FS data (I read lists of UWPs for
fun...)
        In principle, most of the times, a 6 means the world is being held
captive by another (nearby) world, and thus the O:nnnn code in the trade
codes area. Captive means it is either a colony or a conquered planet.
        But, then, the owner should have the possibility of maintaining a
colony or winning a war. Namely, the owner should have advantages over the
captive:
        1) If captive means colony: Owner has more population, better TL,
better starport (or, at least, not two levels worse).
        2) If captive means captured: Owner has some good advantage, e.g.
much more advanced technology, much bigger population, etc.

        The problem is that, in the FS data, there are captive worlds with B
starport, TL A, surrounded by D/E starports with TL 6-, almost all Barren.
This is not a flaw of FS, I think this kind of situation has always happened
in Traveller data.

        So, there are captive worlds that cannot be reasonably held captive
by their neighbors... but, anyway, the rules always states 6=Captive
government, no government by neighbors.

        And, so, the question: Which kind of Gov=6 planets have people
detailed? I.e., which kind of explanations have been made when the "neighbor
owner" does not work? In Milieu 1100, I've recurrently used the
Megacorporations, but for a world deep into the Gashda in M:0, it does not
look good.
        Explanations such as little corporations, military/merc units, etc,
do not seem to give Gov=6. If a Corporation owns the planet but is of small
size, i.e., the planet is its main asset, the Gov=1. If a Merc unit goes
rogue and takes the planet, well, they are there and they are the
government, so Gov=B, or F, or whatever, but not 6.

        Suggestions? Flames? Comments?
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Alos-Ferrer                          E-mail: Alos@merlin.fae.ua.es
Dpt. Fundamentos del Analisis Economico     Phn: (34) 6 5903400, Ext. 3226
Universidad de Alicante                     Fax: (34) 6 5903685
03071-Alicante (Spain)                      "Thursuth gha kvaekh?"
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:09:44 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Anomalies Annoyance - an end to Starbases and 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.

 
> I'm not one to make 'me too' posts usually, but I just have to agree. The
> TL14 gear in CSC and EA can be handwaved away, the stuff in Anomalies
> can not. 


What I like about the higher tech gear in the EA is that it can be used
by people like me who are running their campaign in the 1100's.

Maybe IG should still include these higher tech things in their
products, but put them in a 1100's appendix.

That way, everybody is happy.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 16:16:24 +0100
From: "Silburn, Luke (Exchange)" <SilburnL@logica.com>
Subject: PE Points

Hi, I've been lurking for a couple of weeks now and since I've finally
managed to figure out how to post to the list I though I'd kick off with
a couple of points related to PE.

Firstly. Is the fact that TL0 worlds always have a GWP of zero RUs
intentional? If this is the case then why list the costs for TL0
military units (at several gazillion RUs each), when such worlds will
never have the RUs to buy them?

Secondly. I've been following the population versus size infrastructure
debate with some interest. Whilst I think that the population people
have made some good points, I think I favour having some aspect of
population to factor in to the calculation. So how about distinguishing
between base infrastructure and effective infrastructure in the same way
that resources distinguishes between the base level (potential) and the
available level (effective)?

Base infrastructure is bought at a fixed price, determined by the size
of the planet (since surface area has some obvious implications for
infrastructure development) and is used to calculate the infrastucture
maintenance cost for the world. Some kind of cap linked to available
resources (similar to what already exists in the rules) should apply to
the base. Since the population digit of a world is essentially a
logarithmic number how about subtracting this figure from base
infrastructure to arrive at effective infrastructure? This would
represent the division of infrastructure amongst the population. You can
then specify that no world should be able to have an effective
infrastructure higher than their TL (as in the original rules).

I think this adds very little complexity (its similar to, but simpler
than, the existing Resources mechanic). It models the decline in
infrastructure that should occur when a LoPop world gets nominated for
the PEs invountary colonisation programme and permits PEs to overspend
on base resources that are inefficiently used (presumably in preparation
for all those involuntary colonists that are going to be arriving Real
Soon Now). It allows PEs to develop low population, high infrastructure
colonies that are a (hopefully) a paying proposition, but still
penalises low pop worlds by imposing a relatively high cost for base
infrastructure development (the pop 10 capital only needs to have five
more BI points than its pop 5 colony to get the same EI, even though its
GWP will be five orders of magnitude greater than the colony's; all
other factors being equal). I originally thought of applying the LF
divisor to BI in order to calculate EI, but that produced enormous
variations in results for worlds at the extremes of the range, which I
didn't feel were warranted.

The only downside is that I'm not sure how to extend it to big ticket
items such as starports and the like. The obvious first step is to have
a table of starport costs based upon population, but this raises the
possibility of a PE buying a cheap A-port at pop 5 before ramping
population up to 9 or 10. Perhaps particular grades of Starports should
have specified levels of EI in order to support them properly, thus as
population increases you have to raise BI to maintain the necessary EI
(this is a nice squeeze actually, since good starports will increase
population over time). This effectively breaks the present one-time cost
for startports into the initial investment (to get basic capability) and
the ongoing investment (to maintain capability in the face of increasing
volumes of traffic) which probably means that the RU costs for starports
would need to be lower (with the shortfall made up by the extra BI
investment required down the line).

This is all extemporised stuff, so feel free to refine and criticise.

Luke
SilburnL@logica.com
Suggestions for a witty .sig gratefully received....

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:39:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: Psionic institutes - and B pop worlds

On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Carlos Alos-Ferrer wrote:

>         Btw, to the authors of Psionic Institutes... it is stated that Shig
> is a matriarchy. Remarkably, it is quite close to the matriarchal Rebin
> Empire in Massilia. Did you thought of any specific relationship between
> Shig and Rebin Empire, or thought that the matriarchal system in Rebin was
> the cause of the one in Shig, or was it simple coincidence?

It was coincidence.  I didn't even think about Shig.  Funny how things 
like that happen. :) It opens an opportunity for someone to come along 
later with an adventure or short story that explains some relationship 
between them, though.  That write-up is one of my favorites from the book 
- - I very much enjoyed making it - so I'd like to see such an adventure or 
short story, going either way with the relationship.


- -Joe
______________________________________________________________________________
Joseph E. Walsh  |  Game Designer for Marc Miller's Traveller
_________________|  Atari 1200XL and Apple IIGS User and Programmer

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:28:33 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Marc Miller--Please.

John R. Snead wrote:
> 
> I'm with most everyone else about changing the task system.  Stats are
> overvalued wrt skills.  However, Ken's current task revisions IMHO
> involves far too many dice. 

Do you think that the current system involves too many more dice?  Let's
do a comparison.

Difficulty	T4.1's Dice	KBv2.0's Dice	Increase
==========	===========	=============	=========
Easy		1		2		1
Average		2		3		1
Difficult	3		4		1
Formidable	3		5		2
Staggering	4		6		2
Impossible	5		7		2


So, you see, with KBv2.0, you are only adding 1 or 2 dice to the task
throw.  That doesn't seem to be a significant amount to me--especially
when you see all of the benefits associated with using this system (see
my plea to Marc Miller).

> How about using Ken's first suggestion (keep
> the same number of dice per task, but use 1/2 stat (round up) + 2 * skill.

This is my first task system fix--KBv1.1.

Although it fixes problems with probablilities and so forth, this system
was unpopular because of the awkward math.

You're in combat.  You get hit.  Quick, what's half your current Dex
(which has been reduced because of wounds) plus double your skill
level--let's find your target number so that you can shoot back.

This is just too unweildy in combat.  It's one of the main reasons I
improved KBv1.1 into KBv2.0.

In KBv2.0, all you are doing is adding two numbers together--just like
in T4 and T4.1.  Except, in KBv2.0, a skill means a lot more than it
does in either of those systems.

> The character sheet could even have a space for the final task number by
> each skill, and for the 1/2 stat value by each stat to minimize the
> in-play math. 

Yes, but you haven't accounted for a character getting wounded.  When
this happens, his wounds reduce his effectiveness (read:  lowers his
target numbers).

Kenneth.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:43:30 +0000
From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: T4.1 Task System - Plea and Suggestion

Nick Munn wrote:
> 
> Just to echo previous comments about the T4/4.1 task system: it
> over-rates stats relative to skills, makes spectacular
> success/failure rather arbitrary, etc..  Please fix it!
> 
> I quite like Ken's KBv2.0.  However, here's another suggestion which
> eliminates those half-dice and feels a bit like MT, while being a bit
> more flexible, I hope.
> 
> Proposed new weighting: stat/3 (round down) + skill

Anytime you have to do a calculation with the stat, it becomes
cumbersome during combat.  I learned this the hard way with KBv1.1.

You get wounded, and then you have to recalculate the stat.  That's why
I designed KBv2.0 to adjust the skill instead of the stat.

Stats are left as is, and any calculation to the skill can be indicated
next to the skill on the character sheet because skills are not effected
by combat.

What you are left with is the simple addition of two factors--in KBv2.0
you're adding stat + experience score, just like in T4/4.1.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 11:56:29 -0400
From: "Paul D. Owensby" <pauld@athens.net>
Subject: Re: Marc Miller--Please.

>I'm with most everyone else about changing the task system.  Stats are

I'm in agreement here, I would be interested in knowing if *anyone* uses
it as written.

>in-play math.  I've adjusted to the half die for Difficult tasks and can
>live with it. 

Never understood the problem with half dice... Just take a Sharpie and
write 1-3 on the sides, folks... I guess it's just "one of those things" you
either loath or don't even notice. I've seen folks complain about having
to use a d3, then present systems using multiple divisions, square roots,
and natural logs, so I guess it's just the idea that sticks in people's craw.

>Also, I hate the idea of having to roll for skills every years or term or
>anything else.  That system is quite unfair.  One PC in the party may make
>85% of their rolls (I've seen this happen) while another may only make 35%
>of their rolls.  For the same # of terms served, one PC ends up with 2.5
>as many skills.  I always loathed this in CT's advanced char gen. Maybe
>you could limit skills to level 6 (an easy to remember number in Traveller)
>during char gen.  Doing this allows folks to have the same number of skills

And then we come to the bit that sticks in *my* craw <g>. I LOATH the 
"one skill per year, guaranteed" system in T4, and would love to see the
return of the skill rolls. Yeah, I've seen characters go through 7 terms of
service and have fewer skills than another who only served 2, but I've seen
that in Real Life(tm) too, and it feels realistic to me. The "everyone ends up
with the same number of skills" hits me in the same spot as the Objectives
Based Education system's concern for self-realization and touchy-feely
"let's do away with grades and instill self-worth" concepts that just make
me want to get a hold of the GREAT BIG "Life Ain't Fair" stick and 
START WHAPPIN' HEADS!! AND THEN...

Er, excuse me... <g> Wipe yourself off with one of those towels while I go
take my medication. :)


**********************************************************
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: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:12:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: THUDDD delayed

Hi, all,

Just as I was gearing up last weekend to (finally) officially launch
THUDDD 5, there was a completely unexpected death in my family (my wife's
grandmother, for those who might be concerned).  Needless to say,
everything has been a complete mess since then. 

Please don't feel you need to send condolences or the like; I know the TML
is a family, and I know you'll all be eager to help -- but I'm getting
almost no time to check my email anyway, and I'm close to running out of
quota on my mail server.

The point is that, given that it will be several more days before things
are back together here (or close to it, anyway), June looks to be shot for
the THUDDD.  The 'Yacht' competition will commence in July instead, and
we'll just leave June as a breather month.  Sorry if this inconveniences
anyone.

Once again, thanks for being such a cool group of friends.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:21:31 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Traveller USR Pilot owners

I've got my Pilot SDK and started thinking about nifty helper apps to write
for Traveller. In my experience most software for RPG hinders more than it
helps if they're neccessary during play so my Mac Traveller software is
mostly for designing vehicles, designing systems, keeping track of PC/NPC
between play plus all the DTP files for my rules. What if you had the
current sector, your NPCs, your vehicle signature profiles etc handy on the
PILOT? What about detailed vehicle/starship damage resolution where all you
do is tap in the task results and the Pilot will do the rest?

Now, how many of you TML:izens are proud owners of a USR Pilot or the
PalmPilot 5000? If there are enough I MIGHT make my apps compatible with
KBv2.0 and other rules I deem worthy despite that I don't use them myself.

<Please note that I do not PROMISE anything at all>


/Anders Backman
Aniware AB
anders.backman@aniware.se

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:34:06 -0700
From: Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Game Design

Joe Walsh wrote:

>This is true, and I'd like to point out that IG has made great strides in
>this area.  The first products either got no or seemingly no
>playtesting.  Later products had hurried playtesting, due to the scramble
>for getting the schedule caught up.  Current products are undergoing lots
>and lots of playtesting.  All in contact with the designers, of course,
>so that does fall short of your suggestion.  But, at least things are
>improving.  And your suggestion is another one I can try to mention to
>The Powers That Be, when opportunity presents itself.

I think it's showing. This was one of the worst problems with the first
printing. IG was obviously so rushed that they did not have time to
playtest most of the rules. The task system was one of the worst examples
of this. Products like PEs are apparently rebuilding IG's reputation
largely because they have been playtested.

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

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1436
***********************************
