Traveller-digest      Monday, October 11 1999      Volume 1999 : Number 1191



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: GTL9 5 dTon Shuttle
Re: Starports in the 21C
Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #1183
Re: Battledress/Battlesuit Protection
Re: BD vs. Mechs
Re: GTL8/9 Starships
Treaty Name
re: Spraying 'Near-c-rocks-B-gone' liberally
Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #1183
Re: 
Re: Treaty Name
Re: Jump Technology
Re: BD vs. Mechs
Ruminations on 'Behind the Claw'
Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #1183
Re: BD vs. Mechs
TRAVELLERS AID SOCIETY
Re: [none]
re: 1997 ROM TL Flamewar Historical Re-enactment
Traveller resource
Re: Firing two guns at once
Bigger ammo clips
RE: Traveller Versions
RE: Traveller Versions
Re: Firing two guns at once (drifting OT)

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:47:17 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: GTL9 5 dTon Shuttle

In mail you write:

> Here is something for you guys to play with.  As Rob found out 
> many moons ago, so have I: Thrusters and Fusion Reactors are 
> very large, expensive and inefficient at this TL.  This model uses a 
> fission reactor for power, carries 58 cf of cargo and three 
> passengers in addition to the pilot.  Its not very fast but it does get 
> around.  I am seriously considering just dropping the TL9 fusion 
> reactor from MTU and saying that the TL10 version was invented 
> instead.  At least with it you can use the thrusters at TL8/9!

Try diggiung thru the archives for one of my posts about the NERVA
engines that were actually *produced*. They got as far as testing
"flight configured" engines on the ground. 

I'm not sure where the article is, so I can't post it right now. But as
I recall, they had a hell of a lot better performance (at TL6-7) than
this TL9 rocket does. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:55:54 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Starports in the 21C

In mail you write:

>> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:22:33 +1300
>> From: "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
>> 
>> Yeah, and I really want to dip my nice red-hot crytaliron hull in a 
>> brine bath. Seriously IMO landing recently re-entered, and thus 
>> somewhat warm, starships in salty sea water is proably not going to do 
>> much for their longevity.
>
> Note that once you get CG, reentry heating is history; you can waft down
> gentle as a snowflake.  Even for hot reentries, water landing might make a
> lot of sense; as mentioned, it's safer (for both ship and city) than
> coming in over land.  And a ship doing hot reentries is probably going to
> have some sort of expendable (or at least frequently replaced) ablative
> skin, like the current Shuttle, so longevity isn't a factor.

Actually, the Shuttle does *not* have an ablative skin. Just one that
can withstand high temps *and* is a superb insulator, so that the heat
doesn't leak inward and fry the crew. 

The ablative stuff was in the "heat shields" that the Mercury, Gemini,
and Apollo capsules used. As well as a lot of other "one shot" recovery
systems.

Interesting data point. The Chinese use *oak* for such disposable heat
shields. 

> IIRC, Pournelle used water landings (is that an oxymoron?) as the normal
> mode of operations in his Codominium books.

Given that his "shuttles" came down *under power*, and had fusion
power, this is reasonable.

The Delta-X has shown that "tail sitter" landings are quite workable as
well. And they take up a lot less real estate.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:01:39 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #1183

In mail you write:

> On 10 Oct 99, at 22:41, Chris Peers wrote:
>
>> You know, about the near-c rocks...

<snip>

> Ok, now explain how come Lucan didn't use them in the Black War period 
> of the Rebellion. He nuked quite a lot of planets bare, and 
> intentionally left many other planets without the infrastructure to 
> support their own populations, so near-c rocks would've been right down 
> his alley.

My take is to ignore the stupid "thrusters" and go with reaction
drives. That makes near-c rocks *expensive*.

For that matter, even *with* thrusters, it takes a damned *big* rock
going really, really fast to be much worse than a nuke, or a redirected
asteroid. 

Just consider how *long* you have to push that rock to get it up to
even 1% of c. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:14:15 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Battledress/Battlesuit Protection

In mail you write:

>> >Black ICE writes:
>> >
>> >> And exactly what effect does the suit running at 70 mph have on the
>> >>legs
>> >> of the wearer?
>>
>> >I'm not _defending_ the BD.  Just commenting.
>>
>> I'm not defending the BD either, but it's obvious to me that the suit must
>> have been designed using Mecha rules--which means the suit running at 70
> mph
>> should have no effect on the legs of the wearer, since the legs of the
>> wearer aren't in the legs of the mecha.
>>
>
> Just curious with terminology now, but is a mecha (as you describe this) a
> vehicle or a suit?  My personal take on the term "Battle Dress" was that it
> was "worn" by the user, not sat in like a vehicle?  Could this be where a
> lot of confusion stems from with these things/issues?  Is this unit a mech
> or power assisted armour?

Actually, the difference should be "does it use force feedback control,
or do you 'drive' it."

You can "wear" powered armor that's big enough to hold you inside the
body. The "harness" you wear sends signals to the suit's limbs and
provides feedback from those limbs. 

And frankly, there's *no* way to do this for a size range from slightly
bigger than human to the size where the operator can be contained
entierly in the body.

That's because his body will have to bend in places the suit doesn't,
and vice versa.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:22:37 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: BD vs. Mechs

In mail you write:

> BattleDress is use RAH's term, "a suit you wear".  A Mech is a vehicle with 
> a cockpit that uses mechanical legs for one method of propulsion.  A 
> solider in battledress is a trooper.  A solider in a mech is a pilot.
>
> Thus a mech may pump it's mechanical legs at speeds and stress levels that 
> would rip off human legs, since the pilot's legs are doing nothing more 
> than operating some pedals in the cockpit.
>
> In Battledress, the operator's legs are in the suit's legs.  If a person 
> wearing battledress needs to move really fast, they don't run.  Battledress 
> troopers require a IFV for mobility until they all get grav belts.

You can scale BD up to the point where the operator is completely
inside the body. Then the BD can cover goround faster, because you no
longer need to have the joints bend where the operator does. You can
get 12 foot long legs, and let the operator move them as if they were
normal sized. That along will increase his speed quite a bit.

He'll need some practice, because the arms and legs will resist a bit
differently than his real ones do. That is, their "natural" movements
will be a bit different. Probably be a lot like being unarmored on a
low gee planet. 

The more I think about it, the less I think that a mansized suit of
powered armor is possible/practical. To get the joints in the right
places, you'll have to shorten the arms and legs relative to the
thickness they have to have for the armor, and the sensor effector
setup. The result would be *really* clumsy. 

And if you scale them up so the operator fits in the body, you get 9-12
foot "troopers" who stick out like a sore thumb. <sigh>

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:30:40 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: GTL8/9 Starships

In mail you write:

>>Here is something for you guys to play with.  As Rob found out
>>many moons ago, so have I: Thrusters and Fusion Reactors are
>>very large, expensive and inefficient at this TL.
>
> The only way to get a GTL8-9 starship to fly is extensive use of
> countergrav.  Else the option (IMO, but based on present technology)
> is to have dedicated ships (ie starships dont land and thus for non
> combat ships dont really need more than 1g thrust Then use crafts or
> some other method to launch into space) (I was thinking os a jockey
> system as used in the space shuttle). GTL8 can not have fusion plants
> , which is a royal pain in the posterior.

What's wrong with using fission reactors? By GTL8, they ought to be
able to do lots better than NERVA. So you wind up with a fission
powered rocket that can easily do single-stage to orbit carrying a
decent cargo. The engine uses LH2, just like the jump drive. 

Sure, it'll spend more time in system, because it'll need to save fuel
by boosting to escape velocity and then coasting util it hits the jump
limit. Likewise after exiting jump, it'd boost into a transfer orbit
and then coast until it was time to either match orbits with a highport
or start an entry (not "re-entry" :-) burn for landing on the planet.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:09:38 -0400
From: Jeff Zeitlin <jzeitlin@cyburban.com>
Subject: Treaty Name

"Strategic Wisecrack Elimination/Attenuation Treaty"

SWEAT
- --
Jeff Zeitlin
jzeitlin@cyburban.com

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:58:01 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: re: Spraying 'Near-c-rocks-B-gone' liberally

Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net> writes:
>> You know, about the near-c rocks...
>
>Oh, god, what have I *done*...


[snip]

>Yes, you can make credible arguments why "great powers", who heed some
>sort of Rules of War for the reasons you outline, would voluntarily
>refrain from using weapons of mass destruction like near-c rocks and
>biological agents.  The analogy is to the avoidance of nuclear weapons use
>during the Cold War.

To paraphrase a certain SF series(*):

'We will be using near-C rocks. By the time we are done, their cities will
be in ruins. We can move in at our leisure."
"Near-C rocks? They have been outlawed by every civilised planet."
"These are uncivilised times."
"We have treaties..."
"Ink on a page - this will end the war in days instead on months".

(*)B5 Reifer to Londo on the Centauri attack on the Narn homeworld.

Similarly, the use of the "neutronium alchemist" and "antimatter bombs" in
Hamiltons' "Reality Dysfunction".

ObTrav: Needs must.....

Dom

- ----------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com------------
                       MiB - Marines in Battledress
   "Protecting the Imperium from the Scum of the Galaxy"
Rob Prior's Mac software @ http://www.bits.org.uk/ 

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:05:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #1183

Leonard Erickson writes:

> My take is to ignore the stupid "thrusters" and go with reaction
> drives. That makes near-c rocks *expensive*.

Unfortunately, it has other consequences if you want anything resembling a traveller feel for how people move about.  It replaces the 'near-C rock' problem with the 'toasting cities with my rockets' problem.  As I recall, HEPlaR thrusters have an exhaust velocity of 13% of c, and a power output of about 4 MW/newton.
> 
> For that matter, even *with* thrusters, it takes a damned *big* rock
> going really, really fast to be much worse than a nuke, or a redirected
> asteroid. 
> 
> Just consider how *long* you have to push that rock to get it up to
> even 1% of c. 

3.5 days / Gs.  There is, incidentally, no point to a rock beyond shielding.  An engine without an attached rock becomes more dangerous faster than an engine attached to a big rock.

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:08:09 EDT
From: RnLschaefr@aol.com
Subject: Re: 

In a message dated 10/11/99 5:02:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, semo@pil.net 
writes:

<< 
 Cool! Now I've got a much better response when asked about my handedness. ;)
  >>
And here I thought I was just confused....
BobS

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:09:52 EDT
From: RnLschaefr@aol.com
Subject: Re: Treaty Name

In a message dated 10/11/99 5:58:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
jzeitlin@cyburban.com writes:

<< 
 SWEAT
 -- >>
Can someone post a copy of the "SWEAT Accords"?
BobS

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: Jump Technology

> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 20:27:17 GMT
> From: j_pete@bellsouth.net (Pete)
> 
> >Under the Library Data I snagged this:
> >
> >Bakarov-Turner Hyperdrive
> 
> How is this different from the Bachman Turner Overdrive?

                BTH Prototype            BTO Concert
How started   Lights dim, feeling      Lights dim, drugs
              of disorientation        kick in
Duration      Roughly seven days       Roughly twelve songs
Distance      One parsec               70s to present
Extensible?   No                       Hold up lighter
How ended     Emergence into normal    Staggering into
              space                    parking lot

"You ain't seen n-n-n-nothin' yet..."

- -- 
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      "There it is; take it."  - William Mulholland

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
Subject: Re: BD vs. Mechs

Leonard Erickson writes:
> The more I think about it, the less I think that a mansized suit of
> powered armor is possible/practical. To get the joints in the right
> places, you'll have to shorten the arms and legs relative to the
> thickness they have to have for the armor, and the sensor effector
> setup. The result would be *really* clumsy. 
Hm...no, mansized power armor should be viable as long as you keep it quite small.  Doubling the volume of a human would not be crippling in terms of agility, though it would take some practice to deal with properly.  

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

Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 08:12:38 +1000
From: "Robert O'Connor" <robocon@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Ruminations on 'Behind the Claw'

Maybe someone might find some of this stuff useful ; I think that some
little tweaks are necessary to some of the BtC world discussions (not
being a member of 'Fundamental Particle of the Week' club).

(race : world/subsector, etc.)

* Ebokin : Yebab/Aramis 3002. UPP C9A489A-7
This world has a mixed methane, CO2 and nitrogen atmosphere,
41% surface water and a 'cold' climate (the water must be frozen, very
salty/gassy or an ammonia-water eutectic mixture). The 1500 mile
diameter given must be 15000 (to permit atmospheric methane in largish
amounts).

* Otarri : Faldor/District 268 1131 E5936A7-2
A smallish world with a low hydrographic percentage. Despite this it has
"fishmen" natives. Perhaps the world has been slowly drying out (altered
output of primary star/greenhouse effect) ; or plate tectonics is
starting to slow down, and water recycling is beginning to fail.

* Saurians : Saurus/Vilis 1320  D888588-7
Fauna and flora is apparently similar to Cretaceous Era Earth.
The Saurians appear to be pretty dumb. Perhaps the Yilane (from Harry
Harrison's 'Eden' trilogy) are hiding in the jungles somewhere, or the
big carnosaurs (or indeed the Saurians themselves) are just pretending.
(There was a cool thread on clever dinosaurs escaping Earth's
dino-killer by space travel on the TML last year).

* Shriekers : 567-908/District 268 1031 E532000-8
With the climate and hydro data provided, 567-908 is somewhat similar to
what Earth will be like in Sol's early cooling phase (prior to red giant
transformation).

* Tashaki : Retinae/Querion 0416 E8C69AA-5
Oxygen is present, so there must be oxygen producing life. The
silicon based Tashaki and other critters are probably solid state (too
hot for HF solvent, unless their 'skins' enable pressurisation) and
partial ergovores (dependent on high background radiation).
	The abundance of radioactives must be of interest to planetary
geologists (and quite possibly to mining groups). The Tashaki are highly
interesting in their own right.

* Ursty : Yurst/Regina 2309  E7B4643-5
Given the chlorine taint, the Ursty are more likely to be chlorine
breathing (it is about 30-50X more soluble in water than oxygen).
	Since oxygen is also present in the atmosphere, this world could be
very interesting, with two biospheres developing in parallel - an
aquatic chlorine breathing one, and a land based oxygen breathing one.
(The 'Deep Green' phylogeny project suggests that green plants on Earth
developed in fresh water, rather than salt as previously thought ; so
perhaps Yurst's life evolved in an even more radical manner). 
	Since the Ursty have attained TTL 5, their solutions to 'life in the
presence of poisonous oxygen' would be worth studying and trading for.
	The drying out taking place on Faldor may also be happening here.

* Tethmari : Gyomar/Chronor 0108 D8B2889-5
The problem with Gyomar as written is that the average surface
temperature is below the melting point of ammonia, which is supposed to
form the world's 20% 'hydrographic coverage'.
	Life's development is even more unlikely in the face of "tremendous
atmospheric pressure" which would make the ammonia even harder to melt
(would offset the freezing point depression effect of a reasonable
amount of dissolved stuff).
	Warm the planet a climate category to fix things. 
	Optionally, all life could be homeothermic (above the melting point of
ammonia) and primary producers rely on geothermal energy ; or, the world
could be in the grip of a catastrophic cold snap, and the ecology is
dying - but there are too many Tethmari at too low a TTL to easily fit
such a scenario.
	
* Viji : Zeta 2/Vilis 0919 X6B0000-0
I posted some stuff on this earlier. Not being able to track down a
description of H. Beam Piper's 'Niflheim' (which Leonard suggested as a
reference for a high fluorine world), I'd suggest changing the word
'fluorine' to 'sulphur' in the descriptions of the world and the Viji.
	This has the advantages of simplicity and greatly enhanced
plausibility.

Robert O'Connor
Medico, Gamer

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:27:34 -0400
From: "Terry Carlino" <carlino@home.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #1183

>Terry,
>	I'll assume this is a trick question and attempt to answer it anyway.
>If you assume that you use the jump fuel for power generation and not
>any other purpose, in theory yes. Since I have other uses for the jump
>fuel, No.
>	Under CT/HG, if you charge the jump capacitors you can jump. But
>sunlight does not charge the black globe.
>	With GT, there is an unofficial option for building Black Globes which
>allow you can charge the jump system from sunlight. Use the rules for
>solar cells based upon the volume of the ship, and depending upon the
>sun's luminosity and size. See pVE96. 0.08 Kw per square foot, times
>luminosity of the star, divide by the distance (in AU) squared.

It wasn't meant to be a trick question. I just figured that since the
kinetic energy from an atmosphere's molecules impacting the BG can charge
the capacitors that a combination of stellar wind and radiation from a star
will also be converted to energy upon impacting the BG. I wanted to know
where canon stood on this.

Terry C

All that is Gold does not glitter
Not all who travel are lost

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:51:32 -0400
From: "Eric Freitas" <ericfrei@gte.net>
Subject: Re: BD vs. Mechs

Check out some of the highly detailed drawings by Shirow Masamune.  Here is
a link to a drawing that shows the operator's legs being encased in the
upper
legs of the armor.   He has a tendency in these larger 'Landmates' as he
calls
them, to use master-slave arm systems.

Ride type:
    http://the.animearchive.org/showimg/shirow/1/agderos1.jpg

Worn type:
    http://the.animearchive.org/showimg/shirow/2/intron13.jpg

Here's one for Kenji (complete with what appears to be a butt-mounted
gatling gun!):
    http://the.animearchive.org/showimg/shirow/3/mhd10_3.jpg


Eric

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:06:51 EDT
From: Kagehira@aol.com
Subject: TRAVELLERS AID SOCIETY

    As part of it's membership service, The Travellers Aid Society is now 
accepting ads that might be useful to it's members.

    Ads cost 3Cr per word. Thumbnail graphics 100Cr, 1/4 screen graphics cost 
500Cr, 1/2 screen 1000Cr, full Screen cost 2000 Cr.

    To inquire about or submit an add please send email to tasservice@aol.com.


Bryan Borich

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:15:42 -0700
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)
Subject: Re: [none]

>From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@gci.net>
>Subject: [none]
...
>Supplement 10 provides that the "Owner" of Earth is the Imperial Marines.

  And physical possession is nine-tenths of the law? :>

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:15:52 -0700
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)
Subject: re: 1997 ROM TL Flamewar Historical Re-enactment

>From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
...
>>  In keeping with the mandate of the 1997 ROM TL Flamewar Historical
>>Re-enactment Society* we proudly present "Trolling for Leroy-ites**":
...
>Doesn't this violate the SPLORT-1 protocol?

 Nope - this is _history_ - it only violates the twenty-year rule, IIRC :)

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

Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:02:02 +1000
From: dadams@parracity.nsw.gov.au
Subject: Traveller resource

Jeff wrote:

>Ditto. Whattaya think "Traveller? Resource" means in my >subtitle?

Something to be stripped mined , exploited, left a desolate wasteland.....oops,
sorry, thats Sweatpea Produtions

Darryl

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:17:33 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Firing two guns at once

>Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:22:33 +1300
>From: "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>

>On 9 Oct 99, at 9:04, Douglas E. Berry wrote:
>
>> For those not familiar with the M-16, it ejects spent casings to the right
>> and rear.  Great if you are shooting right handed, they fly over your
>> shoulder.  If you are left handed, your face gets in the way.  Maybe it
>> was just the rifle I had in OSUT, but it was a real problem for me (and
>> probably cost me at least two hits in our final record firing.)

>Maybe the commies knew a thing or two - all the SKSes and AKs I've ever
>used have ejected up and forwards. Mind you so do G3s and SLRs, so
>maybe it's just you yanks that haven't cuaght on yet :)

But we don't need to.  Everyone knows that being left handed means
you are a communist (reference to a Simon & Garfunkel song that most
of you probably don't know... :-)
______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu
(This is the net.  My e-mail address may be in Boston, but I'm in California.)

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:21:39 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Bigger ammo clips

For all of you guys with experience with military weapons...
In a number of games I've seen players express interest in getting clips
the hold more ammor for their guns (so they don't have change as often).
This would seem to be relatively easy (just make them longer, they aren't
that long right now), but if it was, it would seem likely they would
already be made that way.  What do you guys think?
______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu
(This is the net.  My e-mail address may be in Boston, but I'm in California.)

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:36:53 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: RE: Traveller Versions

Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 13:08:45 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>

>GURPS Basic doesn't have a task system in the same way that most ex-TNE, MT
>and T4 users would understand.

It doesn't have the MT (or TNE) task system, but then it isn't
MT (or TNE).  People need to accept that.  It most certainly
does have a task system.

>It *does* have the success roll for
>resolving task issues

Which is what mostly rpg circles would call a tasks system.

>, but this has nothing to equate to the shifting
>difficulty levels that Traveller editions have.

Sure it does...

>In all Traveller versions bar CT the prefered method of changing task
>difficulty was achived through shifting the task's *difficulty level*
>rather than the adding and subtracting of DMs to a dice roll or target
>number. The philosophy behind this was gone into depth by Joe Fugate at one
>point in either the MTJ or the Traveller Digest.

The difficulty level in MT did just that, it changed the target number
(simple, 3+, routine 7+, etc.)

>The result on this collection of (often differing) DMs for success rolls is
>that most people new to GURPS from one of the task system based Traveller
>editions perceive GURPS as having no task system.

The only difference is that the DM aren't given desciptive names
like "easy", "routine", etc.  This is easily fixed but is generaly
unimportant to everyone I've ever met.
______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu
(This is the net.  My e-mail address may be in Boston, but I'm in California.)

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:41:02 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: RE: Traveller Versions

>Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:08:16 -0500
>From: Charles R Hensley <hensley.cr@worldnet.att.net>
>In all the games I have been involved in, if there was not a well
>defined task system, the game devolved into arguing about how tasks were
>handled.
>
>   Ex.
>      GM:  That will be an electronics roll at minus 3.
>
>      Player one:  We did the same thing 3 hours ago and you said that
>it would be
>               at minus 1.
>
>      Player two:  And last week it was at minus one for a harder task.
>How do you figure what the
>               minuses will be.

This isn't an issue of how tasks are handled, but simply how many
times the book tells you how hard it is to do something.  MT gives
you a limited number of things a player might do and how hard they
are to do, GT gives you a limited number of things a player might
do and what the modifier is.  In both cases a GM is expected to
handle those inevitable situations where the rule book didn't
cover something.
______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu
(This is the net.  My e-mail address may be in Boston, but I'm in California.)

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:45:18 -0500
From: Black ICE <wombat@premier.net>
Subject: Re: Firing two guns at once (drifting OT)

"David P. Summers" wrote:
> 
> >Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:22:33 +1300
> >From: "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
> 
> >On 9 Oct 99, at 9:04, Douglas E. Berry wrote:
> >
> >> For those not familiar with the M-16, it ejects spent casings to the right
> >> and rear.  Great if you are shooting right handed, they fly over your
> >> shoulder.  If you are left handed, your face gets in the way.  Maybe it
> >> was just the rifle I had in OSUT, but it was a real problem for me (and
> >> probably cost me at least two hits in our final record firing.)
> 
> >Maybe the commies knew a thing or two - all the SKSes and AKs I've ever
> >used have ejected up and forwards. Mind you so do G3s and SLRs, so
> >maybe it's just you yanks that haven't cuaght on yet :)
> 
> But we don't need to.  Everyone knows that being left handed means
> you are a communist (reference to a Simon & Garfunkel song that most
> of you probably don't know... :-)

Ah, yes.  "A Simple Desultory Philippic", IIRC (showing my age, I know).

For the curious, the lyric in question goes:

"... I've been Ayn Randed, nearly branded
A communist 'cause I'm left-handed
That's the hand I use...well, never mind."

ObTrav:  Given the mention of Ayn Rand in the above-quoted lyric, what
would be the most accurate description of a government based on
Objectivist principles?

- -- 
AuricTech Shipyards Journeyman Gearhead
"Gold-Plated [tm] solutions for copper-plated problems!" (r)
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9776

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

End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1191
***********************************

To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:

unsubscribe traveller-digest

in the body of a message to "traveller-request@lists.imagiconline.com".
If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is
coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that
address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe
"local-traveller":

subscribe traveller-digest local-traveller@your.domain.net

A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "traveller-digest"
in the commands above with "traveller".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
