Traveller-digest       Monday, June 23 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1465



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Merrick Burkhardt's Task system (longish)
Pilots and Dex
Eris Task System Suggestion
Task levels
Re: Hardware, firmware, software
Deckplan Question?
Re: Deckplans
Re: Merrick Burkhardt's Task system (longish)
Re: (LONG!) Re: Task System Revision/Choices
Re: T4.1 tasks
Re: Roll for Skills
Suggestion for Task System Improvemet
Origins of the word 'Munchkin'
Re: Vote Count
Re: T4.1 tasks
Re: Minimum TL for...
Re: Deckplan Question?
Re: information...
Re: Hardware, firmware, software
Re: Imperial recruitment practices

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 14:10:55 +0100
From: anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Merrick Burkhardt's Task system (longish)

>Taking the medical skill as an example:
>
>Medic-0 Apply sticking plaster, mop brow:)
>Medic-1 First Aid
>Medic-2 Nurse
>Medic-3 Experinced Nurse/Doctor
>Medic-4 Experienced Doctor
>Medic-5 Specialist
>Medic-6 Noted in field
>Medic-7 Name known across the Sector (not in M0:)

Good ideas (FUDGE inspiration?).
I suggest the following based more or less on your (Phil) ideas:

Pick names for tasks/skills that mean something in both contexts:
(Can somebody come up with something less derogatory than bad,
inexperienced perhaps?)
Skill lvl       Skillname (code)     Taskname (code)
=========       =========            ========
No skill        Unskilled (US)       -
Skill-0         Extremely Bad (EB)   Extremely easy (EE)
Skill-1         Very bad (VB)        Very easy (VE)
Skill-2         Bad (B)              Easy (E)
Skill-3         Normal (N)           Normal (N)
Skill-4         Good (G)             Hard (H)
Skill-5         Very good (VG)       Very hard (VH)
Skill-6         Extremely good (EG)  Extremely hard (EH)

Roll 2D6 <= attribute.
+1D6 for each difficulty level above skill
- -1D6 for each skill level below attribute
If the number of dice is 0 or less success as well as SS is automatic.
If dieroll <= attribute/2 (round up) then SF

This gives the ref an easier task (pun intended) determining task
difficulties and every point of characteristic count and lowered
characteristics through damage etc really does affect the player.
(Hey I just thought this up so and haven't thought it through but as I
reread it maybe I can even use it myself ;)


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

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 03:58:37 -0800
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@asylumbbs.com>
Subject: Pilots and Dex

>>a good pilot prepping a course for n-space hohman transfer orbits shouldn't
>>be using dex, but int. Maneuvering in combat should be dex.
>
>maneuvering in space combat should be int! Space combat isn't the same as
>air dogfighting. It is aminly about guessing what your oppenent(s) is doing
>during lightlag, cerebral stuff. All in my universe of course and if your
>space fights are like most peoples ie Star Wars then of course it should be
>DEX.

actually, I always use dex for action intensive, critical-that-you-hit-the-
buttons-right-the-first-time tasks, in preference to other things. I know
that even in flight sims, when the presure is off, int is more important;
in  a cessna, int is vital EXCEPT when landing under bad weather; in
combat, you hit the wrong button and *P*O*O*F*...

I agree, that dex is not the vital factor it is in atmosphere... but then I
run starship combat under a personal combat time-scale, using mega's combat
rules (since no other traveller rulesetscales so nice). Since mega came
out, I have been reluctant to use any other ruleset for personal or
vehicular combat, and have fudged along witha fusion of MT combat system
with BL diffmods. Under such a time scale, with the much shorter ranges
from MT's "Starship Weapons" table in Player's, combat is generally at
ranges under 5 km, and short. a few good jinking maneuvers are more
important than long term planning at that scale.


William F. Hostman		If you were using Eudora Lite 3.0,
Mailto:Aramis@asylumbbs.com 	<-- that would be a hot-link 

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 04:17:41 -0800
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@asylumbbs.com>
Subject: Eris Task System Suggestion

John Snead comments upon Eris' task system:
>
>In a word *Yuck!* I like this idea even less than the current T4 system
>(and that's really saying something).

Hear, Hear!! My belief in T4 is shakey, my players disliked it, AND they
hated combat worse than the broken task system.

>Keeping the skill system simple at the expense of making everything else
>more annoying and more complicated is IMHO hardly a good idea.  I don't
>see that your system gains anything and it just makes things messier and
>more complicated.  Artificial stat caps, doubling the number of skills
>gained in char gen, ugh!
>
>I for one, love the new char gen sequence Marc has developed, and think
>its the best I've seen for *any* version of Traveller.  Let's not wreck it
>to try to make a "better" task system

Here I'd disagree... not enough variety for my tastes (but then, I wanted
to see 24+ carreers in the base rules!).

>One of the things I like about T4 is that skills have the same value as in
>CT and MT, so that you don't have to convert all the old scenarios and
>sourcebooks.  Doubling the number of skills PC's receive would eliminate
>this advantage and make T4.1 a horrible mess.

Again, here I agree whole heartedly. T4's saving grace is Marc's decision
early on to try and keep it compatable with CT/MT. Eris and the "TNE
Heretics" never were on par with CT/MT, and to them it may not be
important... but to those who kept the flame for over a decade, changing
the value of skill level x is going to be annoying.

>Please, Marc, whatever you decide, don't use this idea.

definitely, Please, Marc, whatever you decide, don't use this idea.

William F. Hostman		If you were using Eudora Lite 3.0,
Mailto:Aramis@asylumbbs.com 	<-- that would be a hot-link 

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 14:27:27 MET
From: "Volker A. Greimann" <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
Subject: Task levels

- -> The problem that I always had with the MT task system was visualising task
- -> difficulty - is brain surgery formidable or impossible? All I know is that
- -> you need a good surgeon, about skill 5. Preferably one with a decent dex.

Impossible tasks -to me- were alway just that: impossible. 
If a players insisted on doing something that most people would think 
to be impossible (brain transplant in our world), i'd assign the 
impossible level, giving at least a shot at it, maybe even a chance 
to succeed.
If he just did something very, very improbable, i'd assign the 
Formidable Level, still very hard to do, but easier than impoassible!

I feel that impossible tasks are too easy in T4.1 as well as in 
KBvXX. That's whya i promote using Traveller for T4.
 





Ad Astra,
V.A.G.       
- ------  Volker A. Greimann, also known as: Grei5001@uni-trier.de  ----
- -- Am Weidengraben 86,C6 - 54296 Trier - Germany - T+F: +49651148846 -
- ------- check out: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/4061 --------
- ---- Student of Law, Gamer, Illuminatus Primus, Slayer of Windows95 --

- -----  "Don't hold me up: I am just barely ahead of insanity!!!" -----

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 09:36:24 -0500
From: Chris Olson <Chris_Olson@itd.sterling.com>
Subject: Re: Hardware, firmware, software

Paul D. Owensby wrote:

>I was wondering what computers/operating systems people here use?  I've

>seen quite a few mentions of Macs and only a few Unix/Windows/Dos.

Win95 on a notebook

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 10:34:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: GAHUNTER <Gahunter@cris.com>
Subject: Deckplan Question?

Hello everyone,

I was wondering if anyone can fix my confusion of an issue I have...? I
was looking at the books to create my own deckplans and the first (green
small book with all the original deckplans) book I have on the subject
says each square represents 1.5m^3 and a cieling height is 3m so you need
2 squares on top of each other or => 6.75m^3 

Now my first question is where did they derive 13.5m^3 (it indicated
something about 4 squares?????).... what is wrong here or have I misread
something???

So if I had a 30ton vessel (small craft) this equals about 420m^3 volume
or roughly 62 squares right?? now of course some of this is wasted
space... but if I went by the book it says 14m^3 = 1ton and a 1.5m^3
square is considered 1ton (right?) that would be 31 squares???

Im confused could someone help me?

StarShade
(gahunter@cris.com)

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 11:07:02 -0400
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <brenton@psfc.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Deckplans

>	But again I find myself with another Traveller book missing a starship
>deckplan. There was a deckplan missing from Milieu 0, and now it's happened
>again. In Anomolies, the players' ship is the Raptor, and a quick glance
>doesn't even give me the ship type so I can look it up in Starships, unless
>I missed it then sorry. In the end I have to ask why do I find myself
>buying incomplete products?

I almost immediately assumed the ship in question is a corsair.  I think
there was a reference to the clamshell doors being welded shut so that the
could no longer accomodate a 100ton ship - I think this feature was unique
to the corsair.

Of course, they should have included the ship's deckplans and class name.

I do not recall any CT product (I don't remember the corsair showing up in
any other version of Traveller) that featured the Corsair's deck plans
(almost every other CT 'standard' class was either in an adventure or
Traders and Gunboats) so I doubt that any deckplan for that class exists as
yet (except perhaps in someone's private collection).

Personally I could never figure out why the Imperium would allow
construction of a purpose-built privateer in imperial shipyards, capable of
hijacking entire 100ton vessels whole hog (in addition to other, strictly
paramilitary modifications).  The class was absent in my own adventures
(although there was a Vargr version I used).

Pete


Peter H. Brenton
"Shiela-X where are you"

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 09:28:04 -0600 (MDT)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Merrick Burkhardt's Task system (longish)

> >Medic-0 Apply sticking plaster, mop brow:)
> >Medic-1 First Aid
> >Medic-2 Nurse
> >Medic-3 Experinced Nurse/Doctor
> >Medic-4 Experienced Doctor
> >Medic-5 Specialist
> >Medic-6 Noted in field
> >Medic-7 Name known across the Sector (not in M0:)

Yeah.  This is a better way of stating what I was getting at.
Again, regardless of the task system, if you don't know how to set
good tasks, it doesn't matter.  Having a system that bases task
determination on commonly understood benchmarks (professional
hierarchies) makes it easy to figure out how hard a task is on the
fly---the ref just asks herself, "Who can reprogram this computer
system---a CS person, let's see, Comp-2 is Average, slide the scale
from there."

> Pick names for tasks/skills that mean something in both contexts:
> (Can somebody come up with something less derogatory than bad,
> inexperienced perhaps?)
> Skill lvl       Skillname (code)     Taskname (code)
> =========       =========            ========
> No skill        Unskilled (US)       -
> Skill-0         Extremely Bad (EB)   Extremely easy (EE)

		  Tricky... "Has Observed" is the way I think this
level---you've seen it dome, but have no skill at it.

> Skill-1         Very bad (VB)        Very easy (VE)

		  Rudamentary

> Skill-2         Bad (B)              Easy (E)

		  Compentant

> Skill-3         Normal (N)           Normal (N)

		  Skilled

> Skill-4         Good (G)             Hard (H)

		  Professional

> Skill-5         Very good (VG)       Very hard (VH)

		  Specialist

> Skill-6         Extremely good (EG)  Extremely hard (EH)
 
		  Leader in the Field

> Roll 2D6 <= attribute.
> +1D6 for each difficulty level above skill
> -1D6 for each skill level below attribute
> If the number of dice is 0 or less success as well as SS is automatic.

The SS idea is a great addition.

> If dieroll <= attribute/2 (round up) then SF

Aren't we trying to beat Attribute?  This looks like a good roll is
SF to me.

> This gives the ref an easier task (pun intended) determining task
> difficulties and every point of characteristic count and lowered
> characteristics through damage etc really does affect the player.

I posted this during the last task wars with this as the primary
reason why I like it/use it--it makes setting tasks for stuff you
don't actually know about easier:  Who can do it?  OK, it's Routine
for that skill level.  Task set.

- -Merrick

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

Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 01:37:01 +1000
From: Darryl Adams <dadams@tig.com.au>
Subject: Re: (LONG!) Re: Task System Revision/Choices

At 22:25 22/06/97 -0400, you wrote:
>In a message dated 97-06-20 16:22:42 EDT, you write:
>
><< Of the various features of the T4/KB systems, these are my thoughts:

Call me heretical, but I cant stop thinking something like 2300AD or MT,
where stats where a +dm to a skill roll (in 2300 all stats where devided by
4, since the scale was 1-20 it gave a nice +1 to +5 dm.) 

Darryl

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 12:17:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: T4.1 tasks

In a message dated 97-06-23 09:18:44 EDT, you write:

<< > 	E.g. Geri has Int of 4, so he can't attempt things like Disguise,
Gunnery,
 > Investigation and Sensors as they all rely on intelligence. Geri just
isn't
 > smart enough to pursue these things.
  >>
The problem is that Geri can attempt tomething like Disguise, he just looks
foolish with that false beard and mustache and anyone who sees him knows that
its a crummy disguise.

Marc

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 12:14:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: Roll for Skills

In a message dated 97-06-23 12:05:29 EDT, you write:

<< -> Rolling for skills makes some people come up short for no real benefit.
 However, this system put characters not generated with T4 at a clear 
 disadvantage, skill-levelwise! In MT Adv CharGen, the Average of 
 Levels gained per term was about 3, in T4 it's 4-5.
 This devalues skill levels, something i don't like.
 Some might see a year without a skill a being shortchanged, i see it 
 as fat. Sometimes you just don't learn anything new. Sometimes, life 
 stinks. Chargen should more realistic in this way
  >>

The problem is, as much as people may like TNE or Mega or CT, those systems
don't exist any more. There are no new publications for them, and comparisons
to them don't work. The objective standard in T4 is that characters get about
1 skill per year. And skill levels then reflect that idea.

Marc

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 11:29:11 -0500
From: "Joul, Christopher" <JOUC1@Aerial1.com>
Subject: Suggestion for Task System Improvemet

How about this as a suggestion to improve the weighting of skills vrs
stats.

Keep the target number determination the same = Stat+Skill BUT, Cap the
Target number to 7+2*Skill Level (since 7 is the average
characteristic).

Thus,

Skill 1, Stat 5. TN = 5+1 =6
Skill 1, Stat 8. TN = 8+1 =9
Skill 1, Stat F. TN = F+1 = 16 (Capped to 9)
Skill 2, Stat 8. TN = 8+2 = 10
Skill 2, Stat F. TN = F+2 = 17 (Capped to 11)

This has many advantages:-

1) It's Simple!

2) Restores the importance of skills over characteristics.

3) Doesn't break existing the existing published system assumed in PE,
GM screen etc...

4) Reduces chance of success at high difficulties.

What do people think?

Chris.

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 09:36:49 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Origins of the word 'Munchkin'

I went to the alleged source, rec.games.frp.misc. and the consensus seems
to be that the term arose from the fact that the characters that most
seemed to display this behavior were the 10-13 year olds at the cons, and
the colloquial term 'munckin' used to refer to little kids came to mean
these players and their 300th level paladins. Dates of origin seem to be
the late 70's.

But, by far the best answer comes from one Mark Campbell:
- --------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Question: Origin of term 'Munchkin'
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 00:03:42 GMT
From: ncc1701i@hotmail.com (Mark Campbell)
Organization:None
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc, rec.games.design
References: 1
Bruce Johnson <bjohnson@u.arizona.edu> wrote:

>Where did the RPG definition of Munchkin come from?

Munchkins, in their roles as protectors of the Yellow Brick Road, by
necessity develop a large number of useful skills. In fact, the
relentless training ritual of singing, dancing and skipping force the
small folk to develop perfect coordination and the best possible
cardi-vascular system. Consequently, all Munchkins have Dexterity and
Constitution ratings of 18.

The constant work the Munchkins do in picking flowers and replacing
yellow bricks that have faded to faint pastels also does its work to
chisel the muscles of these hardy folk. Lifting sometimes as many as two
or three bricks at a time, all Munchkins have a Strength score of 18.
Those who occasionally work out even further by practicing sword
fighting with dandylion stems actually exceed this score, and these
Munchkins have a Strength score of 18/00.

Munchkin life is not entirely a physical endeavor, however. There is, of
course, the Wizard to deal with. Being in such proximity to Oz--not to
mention all those Wicked Witches--requires sound judgement and a sharp
mind. Merely in order to survive such a lethal magical environment
requires all Munchkins above the age of four to have an Intelligence and
Wisdom of 18 each.

With their firm, chiseled bodies, the grace that comes from a lifetime
of dancing, a keen wit and impeccable judgment, Munchkins cannot help
but to be the envy of all other races. Still, their courage and senses
of humor make the Munchkins the most lovable race in the multiverse.
Therefore, all Munchkins have a Charisma (and Comliness, if this
optional rule is used) score of 18.

Munchkins as a race are, of course, the most highly developed beings
ever produced by the gods--in fact, each and every member of the race
borders on the divine itself. Their incredible aptitude in all areas
mean that they automatically gain every non-weapon proficiency the first
time they attempt a task. In fact, they never suffer a non-proficiency
penalty whether using a weapon or attempting a new skill for which they
previously had no proficiency slot.

Naturally, such a capable race cannot be held back to only one character
class. All Munchkins are Warrior/Priest/Wizard/Rogues, but use the Rogue
table to advance in levels for all classes. Lawful Good Munchkins are
usually Paladin/Specialty Priest/Evoker/Bards, while other Good Munkins
may be Ranger/Druid/Necromancer/Thiefs -- or anything else they want!

Because of the powerful aura which Munchkins posess, any being opposing
one automatically functions as if they are subject to a Protection from
[Good/Evil/Whatever] 10' Radius spell. All attacks against Munchkins are
made at -2 to hit and damage, spells do -1 hit point per die, and
Munchkins are immune to any spells from the Illusion school.

In any adventuring party, the Munchkin will naturally be the party
leader, despite his small stature. In order to make up for this handicap
(being short), the Munchkin always gets first choice of any treasure
(particularly magic items) found by the party.

Munchkins are distantly related to dwarves, humans and oompa-loompas,
but of course they are far superior to any of these races.

Mark Campbell

"I love California, I practically grew up in Phoenix."
Former US Vice-President Dan Quayle


Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 09:41:01 -0700
From: Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Vote Count

Leroy Guatney wrote:

>  For a vote to mean anything here, the opposing side needs to have
>as much encouragement under the knowledge that unless they vote, the
>old way will be taken away from them.  I don't consider your 50 votes
>to be agreement on anything, and I doubt Marc will either, but I
>would rather not speak for him.

Marc threw down the gauntlet by saying he'd have to see at least 50 others
who want to see the task system changed. *He* initiated this.

Well more than 50 (I believe the count is over 80 now) responded that they
are dissatisfied with the task system in its current state.

As for what you "consider," that's really irrelevent. Marc has already
responded  with a new survey to determine with more specificity what it is
TMLers think should be done to fix the task system. Sam Thomas is
administering it.

>  Anyway, you can put an off-line lurker (J.P.) and me (Leroy Guatney)
>down for T4 the way it is from Marc.  I would guess, given that I have
>not seen an announcement out there that you have convinced Marc, that
>for each of us pro-T4 supporters, there are 10 or 20 or 100 more lurking
>knowing (hoping) that T4 comes from Marc as outlined, with input from
>TML, but being happy that the system is the basic way it is.

As stated above, he *has* responded with an additional survey to determine
what needs to be done. As for your "10 or 20 or 100" for every TMLer
argument, if such a "silent majority" even exists, they have only
themselves to blame for not speaking up.

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: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 12:20:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: T4.1 tasks

In a message dated 97-06-23 09:18:44 EDT, you write:

<< > 	Different skills could have different levels, say, Law could have a
 > minimum of 7 EDU, Comms could have a minimum of 5 EDU.
  >>
Or all skills have the same required level... If Char is <6, then Char can't
be used in the task. The problem is that it makes a rather sharp break for
those on the cusp.

It also implies that, if someone gets one of those skills in CharGen (and all
associated Char are <6) then he gets to roll again.

Marc

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 09:47:39 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Minimum TL for...

Yowza can you say BOOM! 

On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Anders Backman wrote:

>The high oxygen level stems
> from a peculiar plant that carries its seed over vast distances by
> inflating balloonlike fruits with hydrogen. The hydrogen is taken from
> water at considerable energy cost to the plant and the excess oxygen is
> vented producing the high partial pressure below the mesas. Primitive
> humans live on the mesas cruising around in large handcranked or
> steampropelled airships.

Steam engines + high O2 + close proximity to a bag full of Hydrogen

I can see it now: a flaming airship, falling rapidly into the depths of
the atmosphere, burning faster and harder as it goes...by the time it gets
to the ground, even the normally inflammable stuff should be lit up! You
could probably get _iron_ to burn readily in that atmosphere, once it's
heated up enough. 

Air battles on that planet must be horrific!

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs



> >    Question for the engineers on the list.  What's the absolute minimum level
> >of technology required to get airships able to carry a crew and some cargo into
> >the air?  I'm thinking of putting together an adventure on a world where below
> >a certain altitude the oxygen toxicity kills you.  This would restrict the
> >population to the mountain tops and I want to make the tech level as low as
> >possible.
> >    So what's required to get an airship off the ground and keep it moving
> >through the air?  Thoughts, comments, suggestions and References all welcome!
> >
> >Stephen
> 
> I use that on Victoria in Spinward marches.  The humans have to go hydrogen foraging on the
> lower levels to get new hydrogen and as this is damaging to humans this is
> done by prisoners. Great fun with age of sail style fleet battles in the
> air. My players spent more than 1 year (real world year) marooned on the
> planet. There's an article about Victoria in JTAS#2 and you should pick up
> the book "Prisoners of the sky" for ideas on this particular setting.
> 
> 
> /Anders Backman
> Aniware AB
> anders.backman@aniware.se
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 10:01:30 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Deckplan Question?

On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, GAHUNTER wrote:

> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> I was wondering if anyone can fix my confusion of an issue I have...? I
> was looking at the books to create my own deckplans and the first (green
> small book with all the original deckplans) book I have on the subject
> says each square represents 1.5m^3 and a cieling height is 3m so you need
> 2 squares on top of each other or => 6.75m^3 
>

I don't know how they did the size derivation, but, yes, 1.5 meter squares
are a giant PITA to figure out. That's why I went to 1 x 1 x 3.5 m
'squares' on my deckplans. That way 4 squares = 14 m^2 = 1 Td. That makes
it a heck of a lot easier to figure out where to put stuff.

But, allegedly, the Naval Architects Handbook is supposed to fix all this
and be the definitive guide to making deckplans, right?

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 13:11:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: RSpake2064@aol.com
Subject: Re: information...

kkk

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 13:25:08 -0400
From: Peter Miller <pmiller@linkeasy.net>
Subject: Re: Hardware, firmware, software

Chris Olson wrote:
> 
> Paul D. Owensby wrote:
> 
> >I was wondering what computers/operating systems people here use?  I've
> 
> >seen quite a few mentions of Macs and only a few Unix/Windows/Dos.
> 
> Win95 on a notebook

Personally, I use a 486 DX2\66 with 16 MB RAM, 270 MB Hard Drive, 2x
CD-ROM, and, unfortunately Windows 95...:(
- -- 
________________________________________________ Peter J. Miller
Second Base Sports Cards - http://www.dragonfire.net/~pm/kevin/
TravWeb Central - http://www.dragonfire.net/~pm/traveller/

"The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, 
 but queerer than we _can_ suppose"

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 21:18:06 +2
From: "RFXn" <mlaakso@utu.fi>
Subject: Re: Imperial recruitment practices

On 23 Jun 97 at 12:49, Bruce E J Lewis wrote:


>  However, I find some of Harry Harrison's stuff rather excellent;
> the 'World' series I would find particularly pertinent to Traveller
> - Homeworld, Wheelworld and Starworld (I think that's the right
> order)

	At this point, I should mention the Deathworld series, also by 
Harrison. Not exactly a literary treasure chest, but Deathworld I was 
the book that originally inspired me to take up SF gaming instead of 
plain vanilla fantasy RPGs... :)

	The sequels aren't that good, but still worth reading if you're not 
busy with preparing an adventure.

/RFXn     mlaakso@utu.fi        aka. Matti Laakso
 -Phone: +358-(0)2-237 9928       YO-Kyla 19 A 11
 -IRC: RFXn                       FIN-20540  TURKU
 -Talk: RFXn@delenn.yok.utu.fi    Finland

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1465
***********************************
