From jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com Thu Dec 12 01:33:46 1991
Received: from relay.tek.com by engrg.uwo.ca;
	(id AA04380) Thu, 12 Dec 91 01:32:45 EST
Received: by relay.tek.com id <AA13348@relay.tek.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 91 21:00:42 -0800
Received: from wrgate.wr.tek.com by tektronix.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA01740; Wed, 11 Dec 91 21:03:37 PST
Received: by wrgate.wr.tek.com (5.51/7.1)
	id AA21605; Wed, 11 Dec 91 21:00:22 PST
Received: by metolius.WR.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA19359; Wed, 11 Dec 91 21:00:17 PST
Message-Id: <9112120500.AA19359@metolius.WR.TEK.COM>
To: dan@engrg.uwo.ca (Dan Corrin), bfwong@ocf.berkeley.edu (Raven Blackburn),
        anthony@cs.pitt.edu (Michael Anthony Kapolka),
        mcknight@f104.n170.z1.fidonet.org (Chuck McKnight),
        fantasci!traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (Joseph "Jo" E Poplawski),
        jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com (James T. Perkins)
Subject: TML Bundle #270: Msgs 3258-3271
Reply-To: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 91 21:00:16 PST
From: James T Perkins <jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com>
Status: R


TML Bundles come from the archives of the Traveller Mailing List,
maintained by James Perkins, traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com.

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

Date: Wed Dec 11 21:00:12 PST 1991
From: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Subject: TML Bundle #270: Table of Contents

-AMN- --Date--- --Sender--------- --Subject-----------------------------------
3259  05-Dec-91 Robert S. Dean    Revisions, Part 18 << Friends, I don't know h
3260  06-Dec-91 KELLOGG@ducvax.au Tech level 9 ships in Traveller (correct vers
3261  06-Dec-91 Robert S. Dean    Does anyone have... << reasonable condition c
3262  06-Dec-91 Hans Rancke-Madse Let's try on our own << Robert S. Dean writes
3263  07-Dec-91 Hans Rancke-Madse Carbon 60 << I just saw an item on the news t
3264  07-Dec-91 "C. Roald"        Buckyballs, Russian eggs, fuzzyballs, and buc
3265  07-Dec-91 d9bertil@dtek.cha Re: Let's try on our own << > From: Hans Ranc
3266  07-Dec-91 d9bertil@dtek.cha Funny TL's (was: Carbon 60) << > From: Hans R
3267  07-Dec-91 Brian G. Vaughan  Where can I get a copy of Book 8? Anyone know
3268  08-Dec-91 Robert S. Dean    Re: (3265) Re: Let's try on our own << Just a
3269  09-Dec-91 MacGyver          d20 Task system << I don't know if this was p
3270  09-Dec-91 hayes@ll.mit.edu  Artificial Gravity via Flying Circles << >Ok,
3271  09-Dec-91 richard@agora.rai Buckyboats!? << Hans asks what we might happe
3272  09-Dec-91 Robert S. Dean    Re: (3266) Funny TL's (was: Carbon 60) << Ber

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3259
Date:     Thu, 5 Dec 91 22:38:45 EST
From: Robert S. Dean  <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Revisions, Part 18

Friends, 

     I don't know how much longer I'm going to do this.  I need to speak to
Carl, but I think that full back/forth transfer from GEnie will be phased
out by Christmas or by whenever my next GEnie bill comes, whichever is first.

     Since no GDW rep has had anything to say (Trust us, you'll like it) for
a number of days, I'm not sure if they are reading any of this.  I wouldn't
say that they are exactly receiving overwhelming support.

     You know, I just fully realized this evening (as I was reading my Classic
Traveller Book 3) that by the time that GDW changes the rules system and 
the background, there is no reason left for them to use the name Traveller
except to capitalize on whatever good will they have left.  (And since I think
that we old Traveller grognards _are_ what good will is left, I don't think
it will work.)

     By the reasoning that they are using at GDW, 2300AD was really the same
game as Twilight:2000 (1st edition)--they had about as much in common as
our Traveller is going to have with New Traveller.  Scary, isn't it...or
maybe just sad.

Rob Dean

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


 ************
Topic 29        Mon Nov 18, 1991
DIGEST.GROUP [Staff]         at 00:43 EST
Sub: The WISH List                          

You know that the new Traveller is coming soon to a game store near you - but
is you had your way, what would you want to see in it?
 ************
 ------------
Category 11,  Topic 29
Message 97        Wed Dec 04, 1991
V.UJCIK [Duke James]         at 22:32 EST
 
     Okay, I've been reading along here, trying to form my opinion about
what's going on. First, let me give a little background about me. 
     I've been playing Traveller since 1980 with no breaks. I own just about
everything published by GDW, DGP, Judge's Guild (well, it was official at the
time!), and Seeker. Aside from an occasional round playing AD&D, Traveller is
the only game I play. It's also the only RPG I own.
     I am trying to keep an open mind about what is going on. I am personally
adopting more of a wait and see attitude. I'll try to organize my thoughts
around the themes that have been circulating here on GEnie and in HIWG, with a
little of the TML concerns in here also (I have only read what TML stuff has
been u/l here recently).

TRUSTING GDW
     Unfortunately, I can't honestly say that I do. My personal dealings with
GDW have been _very_ negative. I find it hard to believe that GDW is really
willing to listen (as opposed to pretending and doing what they want anyway)
when they refuse to answer inquiries concerning published articles. It took
six months to get payment for an article I wrote. My three snail mail letters
were ignored! (It took a lot of GEnie email to get this straightened out --
I shudder to think about what would have happened if I weren't on GEnie. I
never have figured out what happened and GDW didn't send any letter of
explanation or apology, just a check in an envelope five months late.) Now
they expect me to trust them??? And we all agree that recent Traveller
publications leave a lot to be desired. 
     I was very disappointed with the Rebellion setting, particularly
disliking all of the unknowns that this introduced. It just got to be too much
to handle. The Rebellion has shown us that there really isn't anybody left in
the hierarchy of the Imperium that can be trusted. Intrigue and excitement are
what the game needed; darkness, conspiracy, and political stupidity are what
GDW delivered.

NEW PLAYERS
     GDW believes that they need a new influx of players to Traveller in order
to continue supporting the game. I can't comment on this because I have no
real feel for how many people play Traveller, or any other game, to compare it
to. I'll grant them the fact that attracting new players means more money and
I don't begrudge them trying to make a credit or two.
     I, too, would like to see new players. I'd be interested to know how much
Traveller picked up when GDW changed the name. However, I'm not sure how loyal
the classic Traveller fans will be to this new game. GDW is going to have to
gamble that they pick up enough new players to offset the classic players that
won't buy the new game. Which leads me to my next point....

T2K2 RULES
     I am vehemently opposed to this change for several reasons. First, no
conversion from classic to 'neo' Traveller can take into account the nuances
that the old system gave our characters. The two systems are different!
     Second, if I, as a Traveller player, had wanted to play with T2K rules,
then I would be a T2K player not a Traveller player. I don't agree that T2K
'is better.'  Yes, it's different, but both systems have their strong and weak
points and *I* like Traveller's system better than T2K.
     This has been a topic of discussion recently in my group. The consensus
reached was that we would probably end up converting 'neo Traveller' rules to
fit into classic Traveller. We probably aren't going to bother buying into the
new game rules. We will make independent judgements about the support material
that will presumably follow.
     Fortunately, the ability to take another system and make it fit Traveller
(and I mean the classic Traveller here) is part of what has made the game so
much fun over the years. Back in the spring of 1981, before there were any
'official' sectors published, I rolled up my own complete sector -- all the
worlds, starports, x- boat routes -- and have continued to fill in details
over eleven years. (In fact, my original sector was only 3x3 subsectors. I was
doing this on the fly and had no info to the contrary. Then GDW published
something, don't remember what, that said a sector was 4x4 subsectors. So I
rolled up another 7 subsectors to fit!) This is the sector that I use for my
solitaire playing. My group has used the 'official' stuff because then we all
have equal access to the information printed.
     GDW's talk about making their system generic to their product line will
only make all of their games look alike and play alike. One of the ideas of
having a game is the uniqueness that it has when playing it. Making similar
rules over fairly different games/backgrounds will take away much of the
flavor of different games. This idea is akin to a restaurant that serves only
one dish, but 'the spices are different.' It'll have a different flavor, but
will still be the same dish.
     GDW is fooling itself if they think people are buying 2300 and T2K
because of the character generation system. HA! Most people who buy the game
are getting it because of the background and/or basic premise of the game.
Since they come in a sealed box, how does a buyer (particularly a new gamer,
which is what GDW wants to attract) know what system is good and what isn't
before he/she spends several hours studying and playing with these new rules?
What sells the game is advertising and word of mouth, both of which have not
been very good for Traveller of late. With no advertising to speak of, and
poorly edited/written material, Traveller has suffered greatly. It's only the
die-hards like us that have kept the game alive and brought what few new
players there are into the game. For example, my local hobby shops have
posters of T2K and 2300, but none for Traveller. Why?

LOSING MARC AND JOE (et al)
     I'm very disappointed that Traveller has lost the two people who have
probably meant the most during the first fifteen years of its existence: Marc
Miller and Joe Fugate (and the rest of DGP). It's seems to opportune that Marc
leaves and Traveller is scheduled to be changed into T2K with another name.
Joe's comment says much of the same thing that I'm thinking, that the upheaval
caused by and/or around Marc's departure will mean lean times for Traveller
players. I also am skeptical of GDW's commitment to Traveller now that Marc is
gone as opposed to when he was there to champion the game himself.

TRAVELLER IN THE NEW ERA (Dave Nilsen's comments)
     Dave says, '...Traveller is back!' As far as I'm concerned it didn't go
anywhere (pun intended). That is, I'm still playing it as are many others, and
GDW didn't support us much during the last couple of years. Now, all of a
sudden, here they are telling us they are willing to listen to us as they
prepare another onslaught of new rules (instead of what we really want, which
is well written and edited _extended_ rules and more background/adventures).
On the other hand, they tell us that they've already decided to change the
game in the most major way you can change a game, i.e. the character system
and they won't except any inputs here. As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather
they call their new game something else and leave Traveller well enough alone!
     I'd like to know how many letters GDW has received in the last couple of
years begging them to change Traveller to the T2K system. My bet is *zero*. I
haven't seen much to substantiate the rumor that the T2K system is _better_
than the Traveller system. They are different, and everyone has their likes
and dislikes, but I hate it when someone comes along and tells *me* that 'THIS
IS BETTER.' In my experience, this is usually the opening speech of someone
who doesn't know what they are talking about or is out for a cheap thrill.
Soon after the whole thing collapses like a black hole, never to be heard
about again.
     I think Dave is out in left field when he says "...will not require you
to buy time on the MIT mainframe to generate a fleet of starships." Maybe Dave
can't generate a ship without a computer, but I can. Rob Dean has generated
over 300!!!!! He also says that starship combat will be more fun and detailed.
This is also an opinion that has absolutely no substantiation behind it. Fun
is a relative term, like better!
     I also definitely get the feeling that Dave *is not* reading the same
GEnie and TML notes that I'm reading. Most of what I hear is against a major
change such as GDW proposes. I'd like more detail about how Dave thinks that
they are 'right on target.' It sounds to me like we may be looking at two very
different targets (both moving diametrically opposed in opposite directions!)


     Now that I've got that out of my system, I will say that I will consider
the new system if I think that it improves the game that I like to play. If it
doesn't, then I won't buy it. My decision will be based on the merits of the
system and the reviews that I read. I will definitely *not* buy it as soon as
it hits the shelves! After the last couple of years I'm much to gunshy for
that.
     It's also too bad that GDW thinks that they have to support the move to
the darker themes that seem prevalent in today's RPGs. I, for one, play
Traveller for precisely the opposite reason, i.e. the escape from the real
world into a world of fun and exploration, not one worse off than the one I
live in now. 
     I think GDW is still shying away from the very thing that made D&D a hit
when it came out: playing aliens is fun. Every time we get close to having
enough info to really play aliens well, the system collapses and we have to
start all over. They seem to get close to where we, the players, want to go
and then say "Ooops, here's something BETTER FOR YOU! All you have to do is
buy all these new books, read all this new background." 
     GDW, why don't you try learning from TSR. D&D (all versions) support
several different backgrounds in pretty much the same universe. The Traveller
universe is also big enough for all of us too. My suggestion is to move the
new Traveller somewhere else while maintaining support for classic Traveller
as well (like TSR). Otherwise I'm afraid that you will kill Traveller, or at
best make it into Twilight: 5700.
     Thanks for listening (reading) this diatribe. I feel much better now,
don't you?
     All together now, nice and loud.....


"WE WANT CLASSIC TRAVELLER, WE WANT CLASSIC TRAVELLER, WE WANT CLASSIC
TRAVELLER........"

               For now,
                    Duke James
 ------------
Category 11,  Topic 29
Message 98        Wed Dec 04, 1991
D.MATHESON1                  at 23:12 EST
 
<<<Faint rustling from the electronic bushes as a lurker moves into the
light>>>

  I've been following the discussion here for some time, both before and after
this big revision talk started, and I thought  I would join in and put in my

  First, a bit of background.  I've been playing Traveller/MegaTraveller since
1977, and I figure in that time I've averaged about one game a week.  My
current campaign has been in operation for over 25 years of  game time, and
that doesn't include various side adventures and campaigns. I have been
running tournaments at conventions for 8 years now.  In the real world, I am
an engineer designing control systems for an electrical utility.

  Having said that, how do I feel about MT v2.0?  First, what parts of the
MegaTraveller system would I like to keep?

   1)  The Skill/Task system.

  I could live without just about everything else.  I have never been fond of
the vehicle design system, the trade and speculation system is completely
worthless, and the only thing saving world generation is the DGP WBH.
  I am not even attached to the Imperium background.  When I started my
campaign in 1977, there was no Imperium.  I developed my own universe, and
never saw any real reason to switch to the *official* one.  For that reason, I
am really not concerned with how "logical" the Space Viking background is. 
I'll probably ignore it anyway.

  What would I like to see in a new system.  A logical trade and speculation
system for one.  Has anyone besides me ever noticed that a ton of iron ore, a
ton of refined steel, a ton of steel machine parts, and a ton of completed
equipment ALL COST THE EXACT SAME THING!!!  Or that I can sit at a Starport
and buy and sell cargo and make a fortune ALL WITHOUT EVER MOVING MY SHIP!!! 
(Sorry, got a little heated there.)  I designed my own system some time ago,
but would be interested in seeing an *official* one.
  I would also like to see a better ship design system.  Yes, I know some
people here really like designing ships, but I designed two or three then gave
up on the whole thing.  Starship combat also needs work.  (Right now, I use
Star Strike as my ship design/combat system.)  I would like to see a
simplified design sequence, perhaps using the component system someone
described earlier; something that would let me design/modify a ship during a
game session, as opposed to having to devote an entire evening to one design.
  A new and improved robot design system would be nice too.

  Someone asked if we were familiar with the T2K/DC system.  I have played T2K
v1.0 a few times, and have DC.  I like the character generation system in DC,
but that's about it.  I felt the task system was inferior to the one in MT,
and really didn't like the combat system.  (And while I'm at it,  can someone
*please* tell me why in DC gun combat is a Strength related skill?)

  That looks like about .02Cr...

<<rustling sound as a figure retreats into the bushes>>
 ------------
Category 11,  Topic 29
Message 99        Thu Dec 05, 1991
GDW.SUPPORT [Loren W.]       at 21:53 EST
 
James,
     The reason it took so long to straighten out was that the letters we sent
all (except the last one) kept coming back marked "Unknown at this Address." 
     I remember sending you an apology via GEnie. I still have no explanation.
     Loren
 ------------

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3260
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 14:15 CDT
From: KELLOGG@ducvax.auburn.edu
Subject: Tech level 9 ships in Traveller (correct version, sorry)

Howdy,

There is an interesting article by Chuck Gannon in the latest challenge
on Tech 9 ships.  As an avid design nut I thought I wouild just voice a
few observations on them.

He goes on at length about the use of centrifuge systems in TL 9 ships.
But there is no cost/weight/volume/power requirements of such systems.
(Sigh)

The utility/necessity of artificial gravity is gone into in some detail.
However, In my opinion, TL 9 and above do not always need such systems.
Ok, in order to keep the crew and passengers comfortable, you need to
keep your standard maneuvering at 1 G of acceleration.  This would mean
that the crew will be standing on the 'floor' (the plane perpendicular to
the direction of acceleration)  And the crew would feel perfectly normal
doing so, as long as the instrument panels are so aligned.

It has always been my thought that all military ships would have their
interior setups in this fashion.  There may be exceptions as seen in
ships deck plans (scout ship, Kinunir, and other published designs)
but the majority would be more in line with the Broadsword and Azhanti
High Lightning type plans.  The reason for this is that an accelerating
ship need not turn on it's internal gravity, and needs only partial
inertial compensation to have a simulated 1G to keep crew/passengers on
the floor.  (It would save power to do so, and in case of environment
systems failure, the crew wouldn't be suddenly plasterd to the walls, they
would only feel pressed into the floor)

Regardless of military designs, a ship without internal gravity must orient
their floor patterns this way.  I would guess that most maneuvers by such
craft would be made at 1G so as not to expose the crews to higher than normal
accelerations.  (2G's isn't so bad when you're sitting down, but I wouldn't
care to walk under that if I didn't have to.)  Given the endurance of the
ships involved (30 days) you don't need to be a super 3G speed demon to get
where you are going.  Thus 1G sounds just fine to me.

Ok, now when is such a ship going to be in zero G?  Well?  The only time
you wouldn't be firing your engines is in Jump.  (Actually I have never
read anything that says you can't use your maneuver drive in jump, but
there is no reason to except in this particular case.)  {maybe our TML
historian knows of a reason I do not...  Metlay?}

At all other times a ship may fire it's engines to simulate gravitation.
Even if the ship is just stationkeeping in orbit, the engines may be
fired.  Just put a slow spin on the ship and accelerate at one G.  You will
essentually be flying in a circle, but that won't affect a ship in orbit
too much.  You might annoy some guy in the starport control tower with
maneuvers like that, but then again it should be a standard tech 9 station
keeping maneuver.

"Regina Tower, this is Six Eight Alpha Charlie, requesting clearance for
non-gravitic station-keeping maneuvers..."

"Six Eight Alpha Charlie, this is Regina Tower, clearance for station
keeping maneuvers is given, when are you guys gonna get that internal
gravity fixed?"

Another problem I noted in the designs was a difference of opinion on what
is needed for navigation in a Tech 9 ship.

When I had worked up The Horde, I had a few ideas about the minimum
necessary sensors needed by a space craft, and starship.  The Horde
had active All Weather Radar with a planetary range.  I figured that the
ships mightn't always be having to land under clear skies, and certain
types of planetary atmospheres would require it.

The designs in Challenge all have only radar.

I hadn't really given much thought to ducking radiation belts as is covered
in Challenge, and hadn't included the radiation and magnetic sensors.
These of course only cost about 1000 Cr a piece and so may be considered in
the noise level of the ships.

But the sensors I did included that Challenge didn't had good reason behind
them.  I included a radar direction finder so that the craft could easily
locate navigation beacons at interplanetary ranges.  For interplanetary
travel to planets/asteroids that do not have such radio beacons, I included
a Light Amplifier (which is about as close to a telescope as the sensor
lists get)  (The Light Amp is noise level, but the RDF cost around 13,000Cr
which is starting to get into the range that counts)

Now military ships are definitely going to want a radar direction finder,
and probably a laser sensor as well for defensive purposes.  But the
Cruiser included does not have either of these.

I would also think that a starship would need some sort of sensors that
are capable of pinpointing the star to which the ship is going to jump
to.  Radiation & Magnetic sensors just aren't gonna do it.  I think you
are gonna need at least a telescope (light amplifier) and possibly a
radar direction finder to locate the destination star by it's radio
emmissions.  (I don't know much about astronomy but I do know that a
radiation counter will not pinpoint a star against all the background
radiation.  A magnetic sensor will be equally useless)

Mr. Gannon includes an active audio sensor (sonar) in all the ships with
the justification that this is a replacement for the Neural Activity
Sensors in higher TL craft.  Well, that's an interesting idea that I never
thought of, but I would question the utility of such a sensor on the ships
that can't land!  According to GDW, unstreamlined ships can not land
on a planetary surface.  Therefore an audio system is NOT really useful.
	On the other hand, a ship which is capable of putting out 1G of
acceleration for 30 days should be able to enter a planet's atmosphere at
any speed it chooses (max speed 300kph? fine!)  Perhaps Mr. Gannon will
persuade GDW this is possible.

My last complaint with the designs may be just a typo.  But None of the
ships have fuel scoops.  Why worry about the radiation belts in a gas
giant if you don't have scoops to use in there anyway?  FUUUURRRRR!!!!!
I think that here we have another example of GDW's FAMOUS WONDERFUL
editing/proofing that we will doubtless see more of in Traveller 3.


Grumble, Grumble, Grumble...

Mr. Scott

PS. on inter-racial sex in Trav?  I once had a character who was a telepath.
He ran into a male Aslan from Darrian who claimed to have slept with every
major race and many of the minor ones.

I was a BIT doubtful of this and read his mind to confirm this...

He was lying about the Droyne.

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3261
Date:     Fri, 6 Dec 91 16:33:46 EST
From: Robert S. Dean  <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Does anyone have...

reasonable condition copies of Supplements 2, 10 and 13 (Animal Encounters,
Solomani Rim, and Charts and Forms) that they would be willing to sell or 
trade?  These are the only three "little black books" that I don't have...
because I never felt that I needed them.  Now, it's a matter of completing the
collection.

Which reminds me...I mentioned yesterday that I have been re-reading the
classic Traveller books over the last couple of days in order to prepare
some sort of argument for GDW.  Upon reflection, I am beginning to think
that the GDW sales system of Books, Supplements, Adventures and Games was
probably the best organized (that is, the most 'user friendly') system that
has ever been published.  More recent GDW publications (say, COACC) have
certainly forced one to buy material that may be of very marginal use
(such as the Eddum Campaign) in order to get material that was considered
desirable (like an aircraft system, however badly flawed, which is a
related issue).  Is there anybody else out there who strongly agrees or 
disagress about this business of organization?

Rob Dean

(P.S.  Does anyone have a spare copy of "The Traveller Book"? Softcover or
hardcover would be acceptable...I've got SORAG, Vanguard Reaches and Beyond 
that I could be persuaded to trade, after xeroxing, of course.)


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3262
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Let's try on our own
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 91 23:32:56 MET

Robert S. Dean writes:
>
>You know, I just fully realized this evening (as I was reading my Classic
>Traveller Book 3) that by the time that GDW changes the rules system and
>the background, there is no reason left for them to use the name Traveller
>except to capitalize on whatever good will they have left. (And since I think
>that we old Traveller grognards _are_ what good will is left, I don't think
>it will work.)
>
>   By the reasoning that they are using at GDW, 2300AD was really the same
>game as Twilight:2000 (1st edition)--they had about as much in common as
>our Traveller is going to have with New Traveller. Scary, isn't it...or
>maybe just sad.
>
>Rob Dean

Well, if GDW is going to dump MegaTraveller and DGP is too, how do you people
feel about trying to keep it alive by ourselves? I don't suppose we could
manage an actual business-type game company (even if GDW would grant us a
license), but we might be able to do some sort of ideas exchange or something.
I've several pieces lying around that I planned to whip into shape and sell
to GDW or DGP... someday soon ;-). If I won't be able to do so, I might as
well share it with someone who will enjoy it. (Of course, I may not take the
trouble to cross the i's and dot the t's). I've a good deal of information
about the Five Sisters Subsector (Mostly Mirriam, Karin and Iderati) and I'm
currently working on The Weltbund, a small interstellar state in the Foreven
and Beyond Sektors spinward of the Spinward Marches. (Actually, it would be
fun if we could get the license to those areas. They used to belong to
Paranoia Press and FASA respectively, and the PP stuff at least is no longer
official. It's the one place where it would be possible to create a genuine
unknown frontier (as opposed to the settled-1000-years-ago frontier of The
Spinward Marches. I always felt that GDW mad a mistake in placing huge
interstellar states on all sides of the Imperium)).

The last bit is just a pipedream, of course, but what about the rest of it?
If each of us works out one or two planets in detail (and have them vetted
by some of the others) then we could each get a lot more background material
than we could manage on our own.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
"I know there are some people in the world who do not tolerate their
fellow human beings, and I just can't _stand_ people like that!"
                                (after Tom Lehrer)

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3263
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Carbon 60
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 91 0:44:39 MET

I just saw an item on the news today to the effect that scientists
at Risoe, Denmark's Atomic Research Station, had discovered a way to
make a molecule consisting of 60 carbon atoms that had amazing
properties. Only one was mentioned, but that one was pretty interesting:
It is a room-temperature super- conductor!

Furthermore the equipment they use to make it could have been built 50
years ago. That means that we now know of a Tech 6 room-temperature
superconductor. Neat, huh? Whatever will they think of next...


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
                "I am a jelly doughnut."
                        J.F. Kennedy

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3264
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 91 01:11 -0400
From: "C. Roald" <HOBBIT@AC.DAL.CA>
Subject: Buckyballs, Russian eggs, fuzzyballs, and buckytubes

See the October 91 Scientific American for a welter of cool stuff carbon
can be induced to do.  

The picture on the cover is a buckyball (C60) caging a uranium atom. They
haven't figured out yet what it does, but something that cool has
to have do something interesting...

   roald.

- --
"Thank heavens I don't look like Gauss the Dawg."	-- The FTSL Monster

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3265
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se
Subject: Re: Let's try on our own
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 91 11:33:48 MET

> From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
> Subject: (3262) Let's try on our own
> 
> Well, if GDW is going to dump MegaTraveller and DGP is too, how do you people
> feel about trying to keep it alive by ourselves? I don't suppose we could
> manage an actual business-type game company (even if GDW would grant us a
> license)

  Personally I doubt wether GDW will issue any licenses for anything Traveller-
related if they themselves are trying to push Traveller: TNE. It is called
destroying the market if we start to sell to all the old dogs.

> , but we might be able to do some sort of ideas exchange or something.

  I think one of the reasons behind the less-than-stunning success of MegaT
(besides the bugs and all of that) was that there were no overall plan of
publication. Somebody felt like doing a indepth look at starships and we got
the Starship Opman Vol 1 [sic!]. Somebody else had always wanted to do 
something about aircrafts and we got COACC when we hadn't even got a good look
at Dulinors home domain, to paraphrase Metlay.

  This is no way of publishing a game. To do that, a plan is needed that
identifies which areas the players need and fills them in.

  I'd hate to sound like the Devils Advocate but I think that to do something
like that, a core in physical contact with eachother is needed. And at least
one of them will have to work full time with it.

>       Hans Rancke

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3266
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se
Subject: Funny TL's (was: Carbon 60)
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 91 11:52:42 MET

> From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
> Subject: (3263) Carbon 60
> 
> Furthermore the equipment they use to make it could have been built 50
> years ago. That means that we now know of a Tech 6 room-temperature
> superconductor. Neat, huh? Whatever will they think of next...

  There is a lot of inventions that theoretically could have been done much
earlier in retrospect. When something appears seems to hinge on the society 
and culture.

  [Roleplaying games for example could have been done as soon as paper, pencil
and dice were invented:) ]

  This had very interesting consequenses for Traveller with its combination of
high and low tech world. For one thing it means that the TL tables are wrong;
A planet who, if they get the information that it exists, can produce jump-
drives or antigrav from TL9 might not invent either jump or antigrav until
TL 11 or higher if they had to discover it on their own.

  Sure, *some* planets might discover jump at TL 9, just as some might invent
roleplaying at TL 1 (Odysseus the RPG! Travel the Greek Islands in the Golden
Age! Smash hit everywhere in Rome!  'Nice Game' says Scipio Africanus!), and
in the contect of Traveller, those planets will pass this information on to
their neightbours and everyone else. Even the knowledge that something is
possible to do means that more than half the work is done.

  So the Traveller TL tables are only really usable within the Imperium. The
WBH achivement TL's are a step in the right direction but no enough.
 
>       Hans Rancke

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3267
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 91 18:49:29 -0800
From: Brian G. Vaughan <bvaughan@ocf.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Where can I get a copy of Book 8?  Anyone know anything about Newts?


>From the looks of things, I doubt DGP will ever publish the _Robots and Cyborgs_
supplement.  Since it is somewhat annoying to have a game universe that
makes heavy use of robots, with few rules on the abilities and limitations
of robots, and no rules on how to design them, I would like to get a copy
of Book 8.  Does anyone know where I can get a copy?

Also, I am interested in the minor race of Newts.  I understand that they are
supposed to hail from Antares, and that they are one of the few minor races
distributed throughout Imperial space.  I know what they look like, from a
few illustrations.  But that is all I know about them.  As I want to base
a campaign in the Antarean region, I would like to know more.  Would someone
please post some information--their homeworld location, and some information
on their society?  I would much appreciate it.

Oh, and one other question:  I understand there is a relatively new, updated
collection of sector data files on one of the TML repositories.  Which one?

Sorry, I just had to clean out my question file.

					Brian G. Vaughan
					bvaughan@ocf.berkeley.edu

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3268
Date:     Sun, 8 Dec 91 8:52:25 EST
From: Robert S. Dean  <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Re:  (3265) Re: Let's try on our own

Just a short note...I'm using that antique Commodore again this morning.
 
In some respects, we are -already- "doing it on our own" here.  In practice
this means that the anarchist nature of the group seems to inhibit the start of
large coordinated projects.  I would think that we could and should encourage
people to post here, and for the 
archives anything that would be of potential interest to other GMs, but as
an all volunteer effort, I don't see us
rquesting people to work on projects that they are not interested in, to
fill the gaps.

I would certainly be interested in seeing other people's world descriptions,
especially those in subsectors of the Spinward Marches that I'm  a) not using
now and b) might use in the near future.
Five Sisters, would be perfect, Hans!

Rob Dean

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3269
From: MacGyver <macgyver@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: d20 Task system
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 5:01:19 EST

I don't know if this was posted to TML or not, sorry if this has been
posted before.

 ------------
Category 11,  Topic 26
Message 200       Thu Nov 28, 1991
LESTER.SMITH                 at 18:27 EST

Greetings again.

I'd like to take a minute to talk a bit about the D20 task system we're
planning for the Traveller revision.

First, the skill or attribute level you have is your target number for an
Average task. Easy is vs. twice that number; Very Easy versus four  times the
number. Difficult is vs. half the number; Very Difficult vs.  one-fourth. For
instance, a character with a skill level of 8 would be rolling for the
following numbers or less:
 Very Easy: 32
 Easy: 16
 Average: 8
 Difficult: 4
 Very Difficult: 2

If you don't have any skill at all, you roll percentile dice vs. your
controlling attribute. For instance, an Easy test of Observation, for a
character with no Observation skill but an Intelligence (Observation's
controlling attribute) of 14 would be 28% (percentile roll vs twice the
attribute level).

A roll of 20 always misses (5% chance), and a roll of 1 always hits ( (again a
5% chance), unless the referee decides otherwise.

Now for task philosophy. Mundane, everyday tasks are not rolled for. Does the
character have an applicable skill? Yes? Then he or she succeeds.  Every day
tasks with some risk of failure involved become Very Easy or  Easy. Success
means PERFECT PERFORMANCE; failure means less than perfect, depending upon how
badly the roll missed by. Example: I make my Navigation skill roll exactly,
and I enter the system right on target; I fail it by 2 points, and I miss my
window by enough distance to make my landing 2  hours late (or some such
determination by the referee).

Now, some people have been arguing that a character with skill level 1 in
Traveller has roughly a 50% chance of succeeding at an Average task, while a
character with a skill level of 1 in T2K2, for instance has only a 10% chance.
That's very true. But given the change in task philosophy, a character from MT
trying for an Average task with a skill level 1 would,  when converted to the
new system, be making a Very Easy task roll with a  skill level of 2--a 40%
chance of success. Couple this with the fact that new system characters tend
to consolidate their skill points, rather than dispersing them quite as much,
and that reasonable tests can be made vs  the related attribute, and I think
you'll find the new system works very nicely. It certainly won't leave a
universe full of bumbling fools, as  might have been suspected.

As I've said before, I realize that the new system FEELS different from the
2D6 one. And that's a valid point. But the 2D6 system has some  problems of
its own. My own complaints about it have always been that  tough tasks price
low skill levels right out of the market, and that  doesn't feel right to me
to have no chance at all if a character has at least a modicum of skill. For
instance, a MT character with a skill level of 2 has no chance of succeeding
with with a Difficult task. But the equivalent character in the new system
would have a skill level of 4,  needing a 2 or less for a Difficult task and a
1 or less for a Very  Difficult task.

Also, the 2D6 bell curve has always bothered me. (I realize I'm treading upon
sacred ground here, for some, but it's the truth.) A +1 modifier  does not
mean the same jump for a character with skill 10 as for one with skill 6, for
instance. In the new system, a +1 is a +1 is a +1.

Those are my comments for the moment. Any questions or comments? I'd be happy
to respond.

Sincerly,

 Les
 ------------

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3270
Date: Mon,  9 Dec 91 08:31:09 -0500
From: hayes@ll.mit.edu (Tony Hayes)
Subject: Artificial Gravity via Flying Circles


>Ok, now when is such a ship going to be in zero G?  Well?  The only time
>you wouldn't be firing your engines is in Jump.  (Actually I have never
>read anything that says you can't use your maneuver drive in jump, but
>there is no reason to except in this particular case.)  {maybe our TML
>historian knows of a reason I do not...  Metlay?}
>
>At all other times a ship may fire it's engines to simulate gravitation.
>Even if the ship is just stationkeeping in orbit, the engines may be
>fired.  Just put a slow spin on the ship and accelerate at one G.  You will
>essentually be flying in a circle, but that won't affect a ship in orbit
>too much.  You might annoy some guy in the starport control tower with
>maneuvers like that, but then again it should be a standard tech 9 station
>keeping maneuver.

Flying the ship in circles would "plaster" the crew to the walls not the
floor.  Centripetal force and all that.  Spinning the ship won't work
either since it can only be spun about an axis passing through its center
of mass.  You could have two sections of the ship counter rotating thus
providing a nearly zero net angular momentum.  Access would only be possible
along the zero-g axis at the center but you could simulate gravity even
during orbits and in jump space.  2010 had a sample of a ship that used
rotation as a "artificial gravity" generator.  This still leaves the problems
of acceleration but you can't have everything.

>I would also think that a starship would need some sort of sensors that
>are capable of pinpointing the star to which the ship is going to jump
>to.  Radiation & Magnetic sensors just aren't gonna do it.  I think you
>are gonna need at least a telescope (light amplifier) and possibly a
>radar direction finder to locate the destination star by it's radio
>emmissions.  (I don't know much about astronomy but I do know that a
>radiation counter will not pinpoint a star against all the background
>radiation.  A magnetic sensor will be equally useless)

Radio emmisions are not that useful due to poor resolution - visible light
is better - stick with the telescope.  Radiations sensors - I don't remember
what kind of radiation these detect is it particle radiation (electrons
helium nuclei etc) or EM.  If its EM these will work fine.  Do the detection
in the UV - IR ranges - not problems.  Particle radiation would suffer
from cosmic background and non-linear flight paths.


Every now and then I just have to take some time to toss my 2 cents into
the ring! :-)



     T.L.Hayes                        |       hayes@ll.mit.edu
     MIT/Lincoln Laboratory           |           - or -
     Lexington, MA                    |  al646@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
     
     Got an AK-47 for his best friend, business the American way.
 	      -  Queensryche

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3271
From: richard@agora.rain.COM (Richard Johnson)
Subject: Buckyboats!?
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 10:24:19 PST

Hans asks what we might happen to know about C60 - which
is I thank, also called Fullerene.  It is a high temperature
superconductor.  Oh how I wish it were room-temp.  Oh well.

Saw a thing in James's December Scientific American that a
guy working for NEC in Japan found some tubes of this stuff
on the tips of the carbon arc filaments he was using to make
it.

Seems that since it is a natural geodesic, it tends to form 
balls naturally.  *Really* good lubircation.  Well, tubes
seem to form as helixes, and are about 100X stronger than
Kevlar (tm).  And the ends of the tubes heal themselves shut
when cut; the helix won't unravel.

I'd sure like to make a hull out of this stuff.  :=)
- -- 
Richard Johnson     richard@agora.rain.com
Sue Congress!

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3272
Date:     Mon, 9 Dec 91 14:04:59 EST
From: Robert S. Dean  <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Re:  (3266) Funny TL's (was: Carbon 60)

Bertil writes:
> 
>   There is a lot of inventions that theoretically could have been done much
> earlier in retrospect. When something appears seems to hinge on the society 
> and culture.

Quite true...I _usually_ work under the assumption that Tech Level in Traveller
refers to the repair/manufacture level of the world, rather than the _use_
or _discovery_ level.

> [Roleplaying games for example could have been done as soon as paper, pencil
> and dice were invented:) ]

Aside: In 1987, I visited the British Museum in London on my honeymoon.  My
wife of four days (at the time) was a gamer, which was fortunate, because I
came to a display case in the Roman culture section containing ancient Roman
_20-sided_ dice.  I had to sit on the floor for a few minutes because I was 
laughing so hard.

>  This had very interesting consequenses for Traveller with its combination of
> high and low tech world. For one thing it means that the TL tables are wrong;
> A planet who, if they get the information that it exists, can produce jump-
> drives or antigrav from TL9 might not invent either jump or antigrav until
> TL 11 or higher if they had to discover it on their own.

If you consider the tech levels to refer to the level of industrial support
needed to manufacture large quantities of the items, most of the problems
will disappaer.  At least I think so.  As you say, TL9 means that you have
the ability to _build_ jump drives gvien a blueprint--deciding whether or
not the planet has heard of them is a job for the referee.

Rob Dean



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

End of TML Bundle
*****************

