Traveller-digest       Friday, June 27 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1495



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: World Builder's Handbook
Re: Rule of Man (ROM) TL
Re: Yet another Vote Count, 27th of June, Call to vote incl
Re: Rule of Man TL
Re: Rule of Man TL
Chargen Revisions for T41
Re: Generic task description.
Re: Battledress and Heroism
Twilights Peak
Words for use in Task systems
Re: TL of the Rule of Man (Don't call it Ramshackle!)
Re: Rule of Man (ROM) TL
Re: Battledress and Heroism
Re: To the MT People--One Last Note Before I Go.
Re: Generic task description.
Old Digests
Re: Task systems.
Re: Traveller Digest 8: Core info

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 11:54:45 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: World Builder's Handbook

At 06:38 PM 6/27/97 +0100, you wrote:
>I have seen numerous TML references to this book, presumably by Digest 
>Group Publications.  I thought I had everything from that era of 
>Traveller, but I don't have the WBH.  Does anyone know how similar 
>(or not) the WBH is to Grand Census and Grand Survey (both by DGP), 
>which seem to have a lot of overlap with what I hear about WBH.

WBH combined the GS and GC books into one, better laid out and organized,
whole.  It's worth bidding on at auction.
- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry         dberry@hooked.net   |
| Gearhead & Planetologist, Traveller since 1977 |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|************************************************|
|    "Traveller assumes a remote centralized     |
|   government (referred to in this volume as    |
|    the Imperium)...                            |
|       -Introduction, Book 4: Mercenary (1978)  |
+------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 11:53:33 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Rule of Man (ROM) TL

At 11:09 AM 6/27/97 -0600, Leroy wrote:

>Anders, You are missing an opportunity to incorporate this stuff into
>your view of canon exactly as Solomani propaganda.  The Solomani & Aslan
>entries are perfect examples of _how_ the Solomani rest on the laurels of
>their Terran ancestors, rather than their own achievements.  Especially,
>if you accept the _clearly canonical concept_ of a high TL RoM. :)

Either post the relevant quotes from a Traveller product (GDW or DGP) that
states clearly that the RoM reached higher than TL12, or give it a rest.

Since you have time to respond to everyone in this thread, I find it hard
to believe that you don't have the time to look through the few books that
mention the RoM for this info.

- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry         dberry@hooked.net   |
| Gearhead & Planetologist, Traveller since 1977 |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|************************************************|
|    "Traveller assumes a remote centralized     |
|   government (referred to in this volume as    |
|    the Imperium)...                            |
|       -Introduction, Book 4: Mercenary (1978)  |
+------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 12:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Ayers <mark@bbic.com>
Subject: Re: Yet another Vote Count, 27th of June, Call to vote incl

Here is my evolving vote as I review the wonderful task/skill discussion
under way.

I, increasingly, prefer a MT like task system.

1. Only 2D6 -- At root the simplicity that is Traveller
2. Task difficulty levels.
3. Few modifiers applied at resolution time.

- ----------
Mark Ayers
Net Admin for the Book and Bean Internet Cafe: <admin@bbic.com>
Traveller Referee for Seattle Metro Gamers  <mark@bbic.com>
- ----------

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 13:46:41 -0600
From: lguatney@carbon.cudenver.edu (Leroy William Lu Guatney)
Subject: Re: Rule of Man TL

On Fri, 27 Jun 97 11:31:00 GMT 
s.johnson107@genie.com writes:
>Subject: Rule of Man TL?
>
>	Now this got me to thinking in and of it's self because we all do tend
>to think in terms of TL = J-drive.

Exactly!

>> 1) What tech does it take to Terraform a size 8 world?
>	Counter question.  How long do I have to do it in and at what levels do
>I start/finish at?  Another point too, the very IDEA of altering a world to
>suit Humanity is a fairly arrogant and speculative one to begin with.  Given
>the Vilani's conservative mindset... would they have even thought of it?  And
>what would their reaction have been to the Terrans that casually planned for
>it?

Unfortunately, the MT tables don't address the "long view" with regards to
things.

>	Point here, the Vilani never had the medical and genetic knowledge the
>Terrans had.  Wouldn't this have made the Terrans seem MUCH more powerful and
>threatening when verifyable reports of this sort of technology reached them?  I
>mean manipulating Humans was something the Ancients did!

Yeah, but we can't go too far here.  Afterall, the Vilani did pay the Terrans
much attention until it was too late.  At the same time, the grunts in the
trenches might have been totally demoralized by what they saw, and by then it
would have been too late to tell any leadership about it.

>	You know Terrans must have appeared rather magical to the Vilani in
>certain aspects. [snip]
>Also there is the fact that the Terrans were the first Humans they
>encountered who had developed Jump drive independently of themselves.

A point not to be overlooked in that situation.

>> All of the above were accomplished by the Terran Confederation BEFORE
>> the Rule of Man.
>> Again, what Tech Level was the Rule of Man?
>	Very Good Point!

Thank you!

>Stephen
>


Leroy
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Science Adventure
                                                        in the Far Future

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 13:39:45 -0600
From: lguatney@carbon.cudenver.edu (Leroy William Lu Guatney)
Subject: Re: Rule of Man TL

On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 02:10:24 -0800
Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net> writes:
>
>>    I would argue that even TL 13 was basically a novelty--on a par with
>> TL 16 in the Third Imperium.  While it is likely that there were few
>> worlds in the RoM had the capability to produce some TL 13 items, it in
>> *no way* should be implied that such worlds could produce even
>> experimental TL 14 equipment, in much the same way that the TL 16 worlds
>> in the Third Imperium were incapable of producing TL 17 experimental
>> equipment. 
>
>But according to World Builders Handbook some TL 15 worlds were capable
>of producing items of up to TL 18 and some TL 16 worlds were capable of
>producing items of up to TL 19 !

OK.  This fits with the TL19 MT reference for terraforming a size 8 world.
It is easy to explain the relatively lagging Jump Tech level for two reasons:

  1) the Terrans were new on the scene and were just getting used to the
     idea of how this new-fangled jump drive really worked. In fact, their
     tech was so good that some of the things they didn't really understand
     well.  They used the J-drive for quite a time just in-system around Sol

  2) when the _did_ realize what they had, they met Vilani and pretty
     quickly had themselves in an Interstellar War.  Further research,
     except that deemed critical, on J-drive would have been delayed until
     the wars could be prosecuted.

That last part is reminiscent of the American War Production Board of WWII
era:  the railroads got all orders that had been made, reallocated to what
made the most sense, so some railroads that were not transcontinental and
reaching pacific coast ports got the Steam engines, while roads like the
Santa Fe got the whale's share of the newest Diesel engines.  New development
was postponed until after the war was prosecuted.

>But if the sttements in the rules saying "The Rule of Man was Tl 12."
>are read as "The High Common TL of the Rule of Man was 12." then

Yeah, but the achievements (in MT's own definitions) strongly suggest
that Terra was a High Common of 16.  I can see this remaining until
the 3I takes care of the rim in prosecuting the Rim War, explaining
why Terra, after all of that, is TL15.

So as a recap:

  Terran Robotics (AI)        16+
  Terran Jump                 12+
  Terran Env. Sci.            17+ (19)
  Terran Bio. Sci.            ?   (no good comparison except for Ancients)

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 15:48:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: FarFuture@aol.com
Subject: Chargen Revisions for T41

This is a summary of the changes I have made to Chargen. The complete new set
of WFW95 files is available if you email a request to me at
FarFuture@aol.com.

Heroism is a separate roll availabl;e if you roll 5- on Injury.
The Edu scale has been wrenched downward.
School prerequisite for Naval Acadamy has been increased to Int 9+ and Edu
5-.
Int Pre-Req of 9+ added for Medical School.
Int PreReq of A+ added for Technical school.
Prereq for Univerrsity, Mechant Academy and Military Academy is now Int 8+
and Edu 6+.

TL Group roll on Worlds includes 0 (NoTech) and 7 (UHiTech) even though no
die mods are specified and those entries are not included on the tables.

Business is allowed as a major in University.
Business Major and Merchant Degree are BBA.
Grad School allows Business as a major and MBA as a degree.

At Grad School, no degree is granted unless Major skill level is 4+ (6+ for
Ph.D).

At Medical School, now 5 years, automatic Med-1 each year, plus one skill per
year. No degree uless Medical 6+.

Technical Institute now takes 3 years.

ED8 has become Ed4 certificate.

Cold Sleep weeks is per term; roll 2D each term for every term served. DM-
commissioned rank for officers.
Charcard adds Race (default is Imperial), Sex (default is the player's), Date
Enlisted, Date Discharged, combines service and rank, and adds a box for Cold
Sleep Weeks. Optional boxes for genetics are included.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 15:56:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: CardSharks@aol.com
Subject: Re: Generic task description.

In a message dated 97-06-27 15:29:41 EDT, you write:

<< 
 In fact I have a better idea. Change the description to:
 
         To put on a Vacc suit
         Average, DEX, Vacc suit
         more difficult if in a confined space
         less difficult if another character is assisting
         SF: Vacc suit is ripped and must be repaired
 
>>

I like the comments (which give direction to someone just breezing through
the system). They are also "qualitative" (as opposed to quantitative), which
gives players more latitude to decide on the relative difficulty to be
imposed.

Of course the mechanic then says, "Well, I'm being cautious, which negates
the confined space problem" (unless there's a rush).

The assisting part is really just making this a co-operative task.

SS: You find you left Cr100 in the pocket last time.


Marc

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 13:07:13 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Battledress and Heroism

On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, James Lindsay wrote:
 
> US ship:  "This is the aircraft carrier USS Missouri.  We are a large
> warship of the US Navy.  Divert your course NOW!" (you can almost
> /feel/ the arrogance)
> 
> Canada:  This is a lighthouse.  Your call.

Suspect it's apocyphal or urban legend...the USS Missouri is a
decomissioned battleship in 1995, AFAIK there are NO carriers named after
states, only battlewagons. Not, mind that I doubt something like this
happened...a friend who served on the Big E (in photo-recon analysis) had
an admiral once try to tell him that a chain-link fence on an aerial photo
was a string of SAMs. 

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 16:11:07 -0400
From: Thomas Walter Trelenberg <tomt@scri.fsu.edu>
Subject: Twilights Peak

I would like to pose a question to the colletive TML brain:

I am looking over Twilights Peak to modify and run in my campaign.  When
we played it before (oh so long ago) I remember we had a question that
now one in our group could answer well...so I would like to hear how
some of you dealt with it.  The question is:  what is this "ancient"
base doing at the end of some tunnels under one of the octagon
buildings?  The base was built long before the building was even there. 
So did the builders stumble upon the "big metal door" while they were
digging to put in the well...wouldn't it have been worth a lot more
money to the Octagon society to sell off the location of an ancient base
(to further their cause) rather than to just build the structure and
move on.  Did some previous resident (without all his marble stumble
across the door while digging near the well and brick it up and put in
the secret doors in the octagon building.

Its not that I'm knocking TP.  Its long been one of my favorite
adventures....and not half bad just or a good read.  I just wondered
what some of the opinions were about this.

Sorry to distract you from the GTB (great task debate)....well not
really too sorry. :->

Tom

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 13:07:42 -0700
From: Scott Ellsworth <Scott_Ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu>
Subject: Words for use in Task systems

At 06:31 PM 6/27/97 GMT, Rob Prior wrote:
>Jon, you've quantified my thoughts perfectly.  I hadn't envisioned
restricting
>the tasks systems to just two, but you're right that this should be explicit.
> And I really like your standard task description:
>
>>        To put on a Vacc suit
>>        Average, DEX, Vacc suit
>>        increase difficulty level if in a confined space
>>        decrease difficulty level if another character is assisting
>
>My only suggestion would be to change the "increase difficulty level" to
>"increase difficulty", thus emphasising that the choice between a +1 Dm and a
>level change is up to the referee (and each task system should have a default
>choice)

I would use
"More difficult if in a confined space"
"Less difficult if another character is assisting"
"Much More difficult if character if suit is damaged"
"Much Less Difficult if characters has an E-Z-Use suit"

Where Much More or Much Less is a two level shift, while a mere More or
Less represents a single level shift.

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: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 23:06:42 +2
From: "RFXn" <mlaakso@utu.fi>
Subject: Re: TL of the Rule of Man (Don't call it Ramshackle!)

On 27 Jun 97 at 2:24, Harold Hale wrote:

>    I would argue that even TL 13 was basically a novelty--on a par
> with TL 16 in the Third Imperium.  While it is likely that there
> were few worlds in the RoM had the capability to produce some TL 13
> items, it in *no way* should be implied that such worlds could
> produce even experimental TL 14 equipment, in much the same way
> that the TL 16 worlds in the Third Imperium were incapable of
> producing TL 17 experimental equipment.

	Uh... just nitpicking again. Imperium did produce experimental TL 17 
technology. 

	MT Rebellion Sourcebook, adventure "Nail Mission" features
Voroshilef-class battleships "with a highly experimental
Disintegrator-A spinal mount, which convenietly fit into the space
left by removing the particle accelerator-R" (Rebellion Sourcebook,
p.92).

	MT Ship Design sequence in MT Referee's Manual states on p. 71 that 
Disintegrator-A spinal mount is TL 17 technology. Since the PCs are 
sent to retrieve spares for these crucial weapons from 
Depot/Corridor, it must be assumed that the weapons were of Imperial 
manufacture, not any Ancient artifacts or Vorlon imports. :P

	Maybe they didn't tell us when else they came up with...? ;)

/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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 23:18:54 +2
From: "RFXn" <mlaakso@utu.fi>
Subject: Re: Rule of Man (ROM) TL

On 27 Jun 97 at 8:50, Anders Backman wrote:

> As for this uplift stuff despite it being canon I totally ignore it
> as it smells like Solomani propaganda and is not consistent with MY
> view of Solomani (Military inclined, clever but aggressive and
> oppressive - kind of like the US during the 50:s)

	Well I'll try to totally ignore that, you Vilani scum! :P

	IMO, the Terrans (Solomani being a Vilani term coined during the 
RoM, for reasons Leroy explained) are military inclined, sure. And 
clever. And very, very independent, individualistic and 
freedom-loving. As for oppressiveness and SolSec, well... Americans 
have the FBI, don't they? :) Blah, so much Imperial propaganda... 

/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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 16:17:34 -0400
From: Mark Urbin <eclipse@ultranet.com>
Subject: Re: Battledress and Heroism

Chris Griffen <cgriffen@cisco.com>	wrote:
>Douglas E. Berry wrote:
>>He's learned the Tanker's Lesson:  You are not immortal just because you
>>are surronded by 60 tons of armor.  That player had to learn (the hard way)
>>to use sound tactics in conjunction with the improved abilities conferred
>>by his armor.
>Yes, but tankers need only fear artillery rounds or shots fired from other
>tanks. With MT rules, a guy with an ACR can penetrate BD with astonishing
>ease. Definitely a problem.

   Chris, you are obviously missing the Tanker's Lesson.  Tankers can not
stay in the tank all the time.  They have to get out sometime.  When they
get out to empty the honey bucket or grab a bite of hot chow, the sniper
then blows their head off.  This is why tanks don't operate without
infantry.  This goes double in non-armor friendly areas such as cities.
Too many rat holes to hide a rocket launcher.  The rocket doesn't have to
penatrate the armor.  Just blowing a tread off is enough to cost the tank
it's mobility.  Pillboxes are easier to destroy than tanks.


- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ---
eclipse@ultranet.com http://www.ultranet.com/~eclipse/  Opinions Mine!
Mort Sahl: General, aren't you supporting Castro by smoking that Havana cigar?
Alexander Haig: I prefer to think of it as burning his crops to the ground.
(from an interview of Mort Sahl on National Public Radio, 23nov91) 
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ---

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 22:22:13 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Tommy Grav <tommy.grav@astro.uio.no>
Subject: Re: To the MT People--One Last Note Before I Go.

On Sun, 22 Jun 1997, Kenneth Bearden wrote:

> One last thing before I go...

Sorry to see you go, as you are one of the people that is able
to put your money were your interests are and do something about it.

> 
> I know that a lot of you think that I am a hard headed one-way 
> thinker, but this couldn't be farther from the truth.
>
> When I designed KBv2.0, I looked at all the options.  I believe that 
> I have covered them in the system.  It is because of this (that I 
> believe in the system) that I promote it--not because I designed it.

Well, its a thought through system, and something you should 
be proud off. Good work!!!!  

[comments about Ken snipped]
> Here's what I'd like to do.  All of you MT proponents--put together 
> the best 2 dice system you can.  Stop quibbling, band together, and 
> instead of arguing moot points, do something constructive for 
> Traveller and design the best 2 dice system you can.
> 

At last someone has the guts to say what I have felt a long time.
As I have lurked and read some (far from all) of the post in the 
Task-War I have gotten angry at the many attacks Ken has gotten 
because he advocates one system. At least he has gone to great 
langht to fix the things he didn't like about T4.0 tasks. Some of
you out there see that T4.0 is broken but still sit on your asses
screaming for the return of the MT system. Hell open the MT books,
read the system and use it. If you would like Marc to include it
in the T4.1 book, listen to Ken and others problems with the MT
system. These are players and DMs having trouble with your favorite
system, and their problems are your chance to make the MT system better.  


> When I get back, I'll take an honest look at it.  If it is good, it 
> might have a chance of being adopted by T4.1.  If it is, and it is 
> good, I'll probably use it myself--because I like to use official 
> rules as much as I can.
> 
> So, stop all of this bickering.  Get organized and do something 
> constructive.  
> 
And for all out there. Stop the personalized attackes. To us lurkers
out there, (at least to me), the attacks of the creative persons on
the TML is scary, depriving me and surly others from having the guts
to make something, post it and then be man or woman enough to stand 
for what we have posted. Creativity should be encourage, not beaten down.
There is a difference between creative critizisme and attacking someone.


> When we had the first Task System debate, this is what I did.  
> Instead of endless arguments over the TML, I worked for a month or so 
> to combat the issue.  KBv2.0 was the result.
> 
I really salute you for this. Its impressive.

[challenge snipped] 
> 
> If you've got something good going when I get back, I'll probably get 
> behind you.
> 
> Good luck,
> 
> Kenneth.
> 
Good luck with you video!!

Tommy Grav                  tommy.grav@astro.uio.no    
Institute of Astrophysics   http://www.uio.no/~tommygr/
University in Oslo          "If you value your lives, be somwhere 
Norway                       else!" - Ambassador Delenn B5 

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 20:12:04 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Generic task description.

On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 13:51:23 MET, Volker A. Greimann wrote that I
wrote:

> -> >That is fine.  To be a responsible game company, however, all proposed
> -> >task systems should generate roughly equal results (regarding
> -> >percentages at certain tasks for success, failure, SS, and SF).
> -> >Otherwise, tasks using one task system could become easier (or harder)
> -> >than others.  

J. then replied:

> -> This is a good point. The official systems should produce roughly equal
> -> results (there may only be one official system of course). Other peoples 
> -> systems don't have to, if someone wants to run a star wars style game where 
> -> characters do the impossible every day then they can make their task system 
> -> reflect that, if they want SS to be really rare then they make it rare.
> -> Any alternative systems printed in JTAS or whatever should contain a note
> -> saying "this system will make task easier for ......." or "this task system
> -> has more emphasis on skills." So that Referee's are aware of the effects of
> -> changing the this system without having to work out the probabilities for 
> -> themselves.

> Exactly. The Task system determines to an extent what type of game 
> the group wants to play. Therefore, different probabilities are a 
> good thing. It changes the Adventure to a different style of game, 
> but this isn't bad!

This is subjective.  See below.

> If a certain probability is what the players 
> want, they caqqn desiggn their own task system with entirely 
> different probabilities, which works for them. Sure, it's not what 
> the designers intended, but is sure works for those players! 

> -> >Things then become complicated when you have to include
> -> >DMs for a particular task system because it generates results that are
> -> >radically different that whatever appears in T4.1.

> Nio you don't. The results sure will be different, but that's not 
> bad at all It just reflectzs a different style of gaming.

Yes and no.  Its a matter of (dis)liking either the mechanics of the
system (eg: dividing character stats "on the fly") or the results it
produces (eg: SS should outnumber regular successes on easy tasks).

If you want to include two different task systems in T4.1 for the
reason of "offering players the choice of running two different styles
of campaigns (Space Opera vs. Hard SF)", then DMs become less of an
issue.  Big deal if one task system gives me a far greater chance at
success than the other.  Compatibility between task systems is no
longer the main issue.

But if you plan to include two task systems so that the players have a
choice based more on the esthetic appearance of their of mechanics,
then DMs become an issue.  Players on TML don't seem to be arguing for
task systems that provide them with results specific to their style of
campaign; they are arguing over the mechanics of the task systems (eg:
"half dice suck", "2d6 is the only way", etc.).

> -> In fact I have a better idea. Change the description to:
> -> 
> ->         To put on a Vacc suit
> ->         Average, DEX, Vacc suit
> ->         more difficult if in a confined space
> ->         less difficult if another character is assisting
> ->         SF: Vacc suit is ripped and must be repaired
> -> 
> -> Each task system could define "more difficult" in a any way it sees fit.
> -> It could mean an increase in 1 difficulty level or a modifier of +1 or +2
> -> or -1 even.

> Sounds great! Please Mark, think about it and use this system in 
> future products and include instructions how to use these 
> descriptions in the main book of T4 along with the Task system you 
> see fit for T4.1. Do this and i think that many of us will stop 
> pushing their own system and cracking down on the official one 
> because they can use whatever system THEY like with any new products!

While it might be rather confusing to a novice gamer to see scads of
task systems in print every where s/he turns, it is probably the best
way.

James W. Lindsay     Vancouver, British Columbia
  "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"

"Give me the strength to change the things I can,
    the grace to accept the things I cannot,
         and a great big bag of money."

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 16:23:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ethan Henry <ehenry@mag1.magmacom.com>
Subject: Old Digests

Sometime, if you're _really_ bored, go to the TML archives
and have a look at the _old_ digests. I mean, like 1994 old.

What a hoot! One of the Xboat digests (like 4 or 5 or something)
has someone bringing up... orbital giant rock dropping! Aie!

Anyways, I thought it was fun. I found one of my first Xboat
posts from waaaaayyyy back... two jobs ago!

Also, as a point of reference, there are 6 digests in the archive
dated today (June 27), there will probably be 7 or 8 by the time
the day is up. Way back then, you got one digest a day, almost
every day. Sometimes you only got one every two days. They were
also a lot shorter, as the digests went out at midnight regardless
of size, unlike now, when they go out due to "filling up" almost
every time. There are numerous digests from the past week in
the 35Kb range, while in 94/95 I don't think I saw a single
digest top 30Kb, maybe 25Kb was the top.

Too bad TML activity doesn't translate into better Traveller sales.

Ethan, self-appointed old foogie
- -- 
ehenry@magma.ca                                  http://www.magma.ca/~ehenry

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 97 15:36:02 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Task systems.

On 06/27/97 at 06:31 PM,  Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior) said:

>I'd even like to see the 'skill sets difficulty level' system that Eris
>wrote of; I think we could do this by specifying that the difficulty in
>the task profile is for a person with skill-3 (or some other standard
>level).  Although in this case I think that I would allow alternate
>attributes, with penalties.  For example, a task may require intelligence
>but a really well educated person might be able to apply some of their
>generalized knowledge, thus I would let a player use Int or Edu/2, their
>choice.

I can't take credit for that idea. You can praise (or curse) Merrick for
that one. ;-> Personally I had trouble getting my brain around it.

The one I posted was the compromise between Marc's and Ken's systems where
you didn't multiply skills or divide stats, just increased the number of
skills earned.  BTW, that doesn't *necessarily* mean more skills picked or
rolled, one of the procedures mentioned earlier today could be used: get 2
levels per skill; get 3 first time, 2 second time, 1 every other time; roll
a task and get variable levels depending on the success; etc.  The "1-6
Skill Levels or Bust" bunch are the ones that squealed like stuck pigs when
I posted it. ;->


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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 17:31:00 -0400
From: Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org>
Subject: Re: Traveller Digest 8: Core info

>Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:59:05 +0100 (BST)
>From: Eamon Patrick Watters <E.Watters@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK>
>Subject: Re: Traveller Digest 8: Core info

>On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, "Volker A. Greimann" <GREI5001@uni-trier.de> sent:

>>
>> Bill and me are preparing to correct the CORE Sector data in Marc's
>> FS-Data Post. What we still need is someone willing to look through
>> TD 8 (which we both don't have) for any relevant information, or any
>> information about worlds or alliances or suchlike!
>> Please answer, anyone who has this issue!

>I'll have a look through mine and let you know the info you need.

>> BTW: Does TD 10 contain data on Core as well? Someone once said so
>> and i don't have that either!

>Yup, I'll scan that too.

>On another note, Chant is not the capital of the Chanestin Kingdom (note
>spelling).

Hmmm...
I was working under the M:0 text, something on the lines of "...was located 
in Chant subsector, 1 subsector rimward of Core."  When i wen looking for 
"Keshi" i noticed it was in the subsector 1 subsector rimward of Chant. 
 'Chant' was the closest name I could find, and built my asumption on that 
premise.

Mind you if it is Chant, that would explain why Shaaak, a world 1pc from 
Sylea with a hi pop wasn't incorporated into the Federation.  It would lead 
to the Chant arm of the Sylean main.

Mind you my theories have been known to be proven wrong before :-)

Commander X

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1495
***********************************
