Yes, good reminder. The DGP SOM is the kind of
stuff/antecedent/inspiration I had in mind for TNE that I didn't get a
chance to do. "The Old Timer" would have been replaced by something
different, maybe different guest voices for different sections.
> That was a concept from the DGP Starship Ops Manual which I loved so much
> I
> immediately implemented it in TNE. You see it at least 2-3 times in my
> jump
> rules even for a Solo Jump. More for coordinated/slave jumps.
>
> Not required, but... advisable.
>
> - Sent from my SM-N900T
> On Mar 10, 2014 10:12 AM, "DEREK STANLEY" <> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Why do I suddenly have the starship version of the "Check Engine" light
>> covered in black tape popping into my head?
>>
>> Derek Stanley
>> Sent from my iPhone...
>>
>> On Mar 10, 2014, at 9:59, Master Uxi <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> It was. I originally used it in my old Star Wars RPG campaigns and
>> found
>> it much more suitable for TNE once I discovered FFS.
>>
>> It wasn't only a new/cutting edge thing but also very applicable to
>> normal
>> individual construction and even mass production. A design might have,
>> for
>> example 2d6-2* major bugs inherent in the design, some of which could
>> only
>> be discovered after a certain wear value degraded a crucial component,
>> for
>> example.
>>
>> But other bugs might be introduced not by flawed design, but by flawed
>> production (made on Friday instead of Wednesday, bug on the construction
>> droid, faulty materials not up to spec, etc) which could introduce
>> 2d4-2*
>> more! Even proven designs would thus still need shakedown cruises or
>> breaking in/function checks. And if applicable, the skills of those
>> doing
>> the construction.
>>
>> This applies not only to ships which have zillions of parts but could
>> expand to slug throwers as well as boots! As with most, not intended to
>> encumber a game or create tedious checks, but to help explain that
>> critical skill failure and/or mishap and offer a level of detail when
>> desirable at refs discretion.
>>
>> These could also be mitigated by everything from "warning light" events
>> to
>> proper weapon safety. If the player isn't explicit, more than enough
>> room
>> to allow a skill roll...
>>
>> * modified by time taken with a table adding for additional time
>> taken/more expensive materials and tighter tolerances 2x -1, 3x -2 etc
>> or
>> Rushed /substandard -10% +1, -15% +2, etc
>>
>> - Sent from my SM-N900T
>> On Mar 10, 2014 9:18 AM, <> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think Uxi and I discussed this system before, either on this forum or
>>> directly, and I liked it. I think this is related to something you've
>>> tried in your games, like those skill-related system charts?
>>>
>>> This reminds me of two things, and since I'm in a chatty mood lately:
>>>
>>> 1. I've mentioned this here before, but I was moving toward a
>>> skill-related system in the TNE starship construction system. I found
>>> in
>>> the process of designing Brilliant Lances (also rolled into FF&S) that
>>> the
>>> system's (incrementally) greater detail required more design
>>> trade-offs,
>>> and this requirement could be turned into a virtue by introducing
>>> fiddly
>>> little flaws and "personality" into ship designs (the sort that many
>>> games, most annoyingly BattleTech, handled by fake fiat, as it was not
>>> based on any actual antecedents in the design process) that would then
>>> require crews to counterbalance. In BL you were always finding systems
>>> that you could almost, but not quite, make as big as required. You
>>> could
>>> design them this way, but they would function less effectively. There
>>> would be defined thresholds based on % of actual requirement, and at
>>> each
>>> threshold the system would require a set of tasks (played day-to-day at
>>> PC
>>> level) or +1 skill, say Engineering (played at the long-term/fleet
>>> level)
>>> to keep the ship running effectively. I was already starting to put
>>> this
>>> into designs in fuel purifiers and power plants that couldn't run the
>>> whole ship at the same time (FP in the form of time to process full
>>> load,
>>> time to process J1, etc., or PP can run this, but not that at same
>>> time)
>>> and was going to define engineering tasks for "here's what it takes to
>>> seamlessly switch power between these systems under duress," but didn't
>>> get there before the lights started going out at GDW. I was really
>>> looking
>>> forward to this, because players and refs and ship designers and fleet
>>> builders who like "crunchy" details would have enjoyed it, although not
>>> everyone would have used it, as it would have raised the level of
>>> detail.
>>>
>>> 2. I did some work over the years on a ship design system kind of
>>> broadly
>>> based on things like the pre-WWI British-German naval arms race that
>>> was
>>> like Uxi's system, except that instead of player skills, it would be
>>> based
>>> on investment in industrial plant and research through-put, where
>>> instead
>>> of a one-size-fits-all "tech level" the different nations (wet navy) or
>>> races (SF) would have a "State-of-the-Art" (SOTA) which represented
>>> their
>>> farthest mass-producible engineering solutions. Obviously this would
>>> not
>>> be Traveller, as the global TL is exactly what it was NOT doing.
>>> Rather,
>>> it would be more like Imperium or Task Force's StarFire or Star Fleet
>>> Battles. The SOTA would be defined in several areas, engineering
>>> plants,
>>> weapons systems, sensor suites, etc. and these would embed various
>>> design
>>> trade-offs, so that one player might have systems that were lighter or
>>> faster, while another might have systems that were more robust or
>>> damage
>>> resistant, and these would interact to allow them to create ships that
>>> were distinctively different, and would have different implications for
>>> how they were operationally used, both at the fleet level and within
>>> the
>>> design. Another example of this from the pre-WW1 arms race would be the
>>> way the British a continuous powder train and the Germans had better
>>> ammunition hoist practices which affected rate of fire, but also meant
>>> the
>>> Brits were more susceptible to catastrophic damage from flash. This is
>>> very similar in feel and intent to what Uxi describes. I would say,
>>> "great
>>> minds think alike," but that would mean complimenting myself.
>>>
>>> Obviously Uxi's idea, though cool for your individual "IMTU," would be
>>> a
>>> difficult fit over top of Traveller UWPs. As the UWPs were already
>>> sufficiently buggy to begin with, adding an additional layer of
>>> interpretation over top of them would make everyone's head explode.
>>>
>>> Finally, "Bonus Dave Crunchy Hooey," the mention of "folio games." One
>>> thing we learned at GDW was that every time we tried to define a new
>>> way
>>> to knock out a "simple, quick" product that would free up design time
>>> for
>>> the bigger projects it always worked in reverse. The time required to
>>> develop them always became disproportionate to what we could make back
>>> on
>>> them proportionate to their size. The series of "folios" (what did we
>>> call
>>> them?) we put out for MT, Dark Con, and Twilight were blood baths. It
>>> turns out, as famously observed by Mark Twain, that it takes longer to
>>> write short than it takes to simply allow something to run long
>>> (observe
>>> my e-mails, for example), just so you can set a lower price point for
>>> it.
>>> Another "hey, here's a good quickie we can knock out" idea was Star
>>> Vikings. I think the end product was good, but it was not quick, nor a
>>> time-saver.
>>>
>>> Ah, well, life's a bitch, and then you die. There are trolls out there
>>> who
>>> will observe that this demonstrates the need for real business models
>>> and
>>> MBAs in the gaming industry. When I was in the biz, GDW was still a
>>> remnant of the "mom 'n' pop" operations that gave us the "golden age of
>>> wargaming," and that's where a lot of its fun and eclecticism came
>>> from.
>>> Besides, anyone with an MBA would know that there wasn't enough money
>>> in
>>> that sort of wargaming to begin with. The two answers to that, WotC and
>>> computer games are 1) life lessons on what happens when you get it, and
>>> 2)
>>> it's a completely different industry completely underwritten by
>>> deliberate
>>> government tax breaks. Welfare state for "slackers," perhaps.
>>>
>>> > That resonates with how in another Draft, skills could/should be
>>> > integrated in. I like the idea of FFS being a *players* manual
>>> instead
>>> of
>>> > a
>>> > ref one. The *character* can only do it, if they have the appropriate
>>> > Advanced skills. And even once a design was done, a prototype would
>>> have
>>> > to be constructed the GM would run an opposed roll and introduce a
>>> number
>>> > of flaws/bugs (based on complexity, maintenance, and wear) into the
>>> > prototype that have to be discovered the hard way during testing and
>>> > evaluations.
>>> >
>>> > Then, tooling could be made for mass production, or slightly cheaper
>>> > refined copies of prototype could be made depending on the funding
>>> > available.
>>> >
>>> > Ultimately that could hint towards an economic modeling in the rpg,
>>> if
>>> not
>>> > into a UWP extension (ideally reverse conpatible with the existing
>>> codes,
>>> > particularly government and law).
>>> >
>>> > Which brings in more specific addendems in specific regional models
>>> (Path
>>> > of Tears vs RSB etc) if not things like folio adventures for the
>>> world
>>> of
>>> > the month and Vampire Fleets, etc. Which brings to mind the "society"
>>> of
>>> > Parent Virus entities I designed on the edge of Alpha Crucis/Leonis
>>> and
>>> > their economy-equivalent...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > - Sent from my SM-N900T
>>> > On Mar 8, 2014 10:48 AM, <> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> For those just joining us, "WTH" may or may not stand for "What the
>>> >> Huh?"
>>> >> the lost TNE book.
>>> >>
>>> >> > Fair point. The WTH mass combat system essentially has the players
>>> >> acting
>>> >> > as commanders back at headquarters.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > But on page 63 of WTH you (or another author) put some rules for
>>> >> trying
>>> >> > to integrate PCs into the mass combat system. These assumed a PC
>>> was
>>> >> > acting as commander or military advisor for a particular mass
>>> combat
>>> >> unit
>>> >> > in the field.
>>> >>
>>> >> That sounds like the sort of thing I would do (either assigned or
>>> seeing
>>> >> a
>>> >> gap, throw myself on, usually the latter) and leads to my
>>> recollection
>>> >> "there were gaps between the poles." If I made the time to dig WTH
>>> out
>>> I
>>> >> could tell you who wrote it, as it's obviously easy-ish to pick out
>>> my
>>> >> writing from Frank's or Terry's.
>>> >>
>>> >> > WTH also had the black powder design sequences that were an
>>> addition
>>> >> to
>>> >> > FF&S.
>>> >>
>>> >> Yes, I do remember those. I think Terry made a stab at it and then
>>> Frank
>>> >> re-did it. There was also a "choo-choo train design system" that I
>>> >> dropped
>>> >> because it mostly got at the visual appearance of a locomotive and
>>> >> didn't
>>> >> adequately touch on their engineering-physics (tractive effort,
>>> wheels
>>> >> for
>>> >> speed vs. pulling power, size of boiler vs. combustion unit), and
>>> for
>>> >> the
>>> >> ROI was not worth the design time. Someone probably also tried a
>>> >> "sword-pike-pointy stick" design system at one point.
>>> >>
>>> >> One "design system" that I definitely try to avert my eyes from is
>>> the
>>> >> "battle dress design system." It was one of those bad ideas where
>>> >> someone
>>> >> from the Art Dept said, "hey, shouldn't there be a design system for
>>> >> this?" "Yeah, we don't have to send this to the printer until 5:00,
>>> and
>>> >> it's 2:00 now, so we've got time," so it was written half at the
>>> >> conference table and half at someone's desk. When asked, "whaddaya
>>> >> think?"
>>> >> there wasn't enough time to form specific logical objections, the
>>> best
>>> >> one, "there39;s not enough time" having already been excluded.
>>> >>
>>> >> There was a spaceship design system made for Hard Times that was
>>> >> extremely
>>> >> detailed and fiddly and mostly seemed to be made to allow players to
>>> >> design "every rocket propulsion system you've ever heard of," but it
>>> had
>>> >> that two-fold TL problem where 1) it focused on all of these
>>> different
>>> >> approaches that only fall into a fraction of one TL, and therefore
>>> from
>>> >> the standpoint of the larger game don't haul much freight, and 2)
>>> the
>>> >> top-down logic that says TL ultimately has to be focused on "what
>>> was
>>> >> found to work," not things that were tried but failed. But HT is
>>> >> arguably
>>> >> a MT product, so doesn't belong here. Spiritually it was a
>>> transition
>>> >> product, but game system is obviously MT. There are a large number
>>> of
>>> >> "MT"
>>> >> products that are spiritually TNE products: Arrival Vengeance,
>>> >> Astrogator39;s Guide to Diaspora, Assignment: Vigilante, some other
>>> stuff
>>> >> I
>>> >> can't think of. It makes it hard for me to remember "when did you
>>> start
>>> >> work on TNE" because it literally goes back to my first day at GDW
>>> in
>>> >> one
>>> >> form or another.
>>> >>
>>> >> Last thought, there was always a typical error on the part of
>>> >> "design-system designers" to mistake "when we on Earth got around to
>>> >> thinking of a logical solution" for an actual TECHNICAL change
>>> (e.g.,
>>> >> superfiring guns, ballast tanks in submarines, multiple locomotive
>>> >> units,
>>> >> etc.), which caused me to reject a lot of design sequences over the
>>> >> years.
>>> >> I would rather not have a thing than publish one that is wrong. In
>>> >> fairness, it is easy to see how this confusion begins, as it's not
>>> >> always
>>> >> easy to separate "this is now possible/embedded technically" from
>>> >> "there39;s
>>> >> now enough related technical that it's easier for people to say, 'oh
>>> >> yeah...'". That is especially the case where TL is saying two
>>> utterly
>>> >> different things in the "pure" Traveller rules, where it is merely
>>> >> descriptive and can be (theoretically) based on multiple parallel
>>> >> technology systems (think tech for an aquatic species vs. tech for a
>>> >> terrestrial species) all governed by the same laws of physics, vs.
>>> what
>>> >> it
>>> >> is saying in the 3I campaign background where it tends to reflect
>>> the
>>> >> dissemination of core Imperial technology. There's also the
>>> >> understandable
>>> >> tendency of writers to fall back on real world or Star Trek
>>> examples:
>>> >> "this was solved by Thomas Edison or Dr. Richard Daystrom with the
>>> XXX,"
>>> >> but TL is not defined by a guy, that guy is just the expression of
>>> that
>>> >> TL
>>> >> "fact" (a.k.a. "hooey assertion") in that timeline.
>>> >>
>>> >> To conclude, some TL vs. discovered principles things ARE easy. The
>>> best
>>> >> example of this is germ theory. The benefits of germ theory do NOT
>>> arise
>>> >> at TL...(whatever late 1800s Earth is). You can tell TL 0 people,
>>> "don't
>>> >> build your toilets next to your drinking fountains" and it works
>>> just
>>> >> fine. If you're describing an isolated species with no transmission
>>> of
>>> >> knowledge from more advanced people, yes, they probably have to
>>> invent
>>> >> microscopes first to figure it out on their own. But you could just
>>> as
>>> >> easily posit that they are psionic and can sense the presence of
>>> tiny
>>> >> life
>>> >> forms all around them so don't need microscopes, or say that they
>>> just
>>> >> evolved to be neat freaks so gain the practical benefits of germ
>>> theory
>>> >> (at least in prevention of disease) without having to reach a
>>> certain
>>> >> TL.
>>> >> It's SF, if you're not confounding someone's pre-suppositions
>>> somewhere,
>>> >> you might as well stick with crossword puzzles.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>
stuff/antecedent/inspiration I had in mind for TNE that I didn't get a
chance to do. "The Old Timer" would have been replaced by something
different, maybe different guest voices for different sections.
> That was a concept from the DGP Starship Ops Manual which I loved so much
> I
> immediately implemented it in TNE. You see it at least 2-3 times in my
> jump
> rules even for a Solo Jump. More for coordinated/slave jumps.
>
> Not required, but... advisable.
>
> - Sent from my SM-N900T
> On Mar 10, 2014 10:12 AM, "DEREK STANLEY" <> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Why do I suddenly have the starship version of the "Check Engine" light
>> covered in black tape popping into my head?
>>
>> Derek Stanley
>> Sent from my iPhone...
>>
>> On Mar 10, 2014, at 9:59, Master Uxi <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> It was. I originally used it in my old Star Wars RPG campaigns and
>> found
>> it much more suitable for TNE once I discovered FFS.
>>
>> It wasn't only a new/cutting edge thing but also very applicable to
>> normal
>> individual construction and even mass production. A design might have,
>> for
>> example 2d6-2* major bugs inherent in the design, some of which could
>> only
>> be discovered after a certain wear value degraded a crucial component,
>> for
>> example.
>>
>> But other bugs might be introduced not by flawed design, but by flawed
>> production (made on Friday instead of Wednesday, bug on the construction
>> droid, faulty materials not up to spec, etc) which could introduce
>> 2d4-2*
>> more! Even proven designs would thus still need shakedown cruises or
>> breaking in/function checks. And if applicable, the skills of those
>> doing
>> the construction.
>>
>> This applies not only to ships which have zillions of parts but could
>> expand to slug throwers as well as boots! As with most, not intended to
>> encumber a game or create tedious checks, but to help explain that
>> critical skill failure and/or mishap and offer a level of detail when
>> desirable at refs discretion.
>>
>> These could also be mitigated by everything from "warning light" events
>> to
>> proper weapon safety. If the player isn't explicit, more than enough
>> room
>> to allow a skill roll...
>>
>> * modified by time taken with a table adding for additional time
>> taken/more expensive materials and tighter tolerances 2x -1, 3x -2 etc
>> or
>> Rushed /substandard -10% +1, -15% +2, etc
>>
>> - Sent from my SM-N900T
>> On Mar 10, 2014 9:18 AM, <> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think Uxi and I discussed this system before, either on this forum or
>>> directly, and I liked it. I think this is related to something you've
>>> tried in your games, like those skill-related system charts?
>>>
>>> This reminds me of two things, and since I'm in a chatty mood lately:
>>>
>>> 1. I've mentioned this here before, but I was moving toward a
>>> skill-related system in the TNE starship construction system. I found
>>> in
>>> the process of designing Brilliant Lances (also rolled into FF&S) that
>>> the
>>> system's (incrementally) greater detail required more design
>>> trade-offs,
>>> and this requirement could be turned into a virtue by introducing
>>> fiddly
>>> little flaws and "personality" into ship designs (the sort that many
>>> games, most annoyingly BattleTech, handled by fake fiat, as it was not
>>> based on any actual antecedents in the design process) that would then
>>> require crews to counterbalance. In BL you were always finding systems
>>> that you could almost, but not quite, make as big as required. You
>>> could
>>> design them this way, but they would function less effectively. There
>>> would be defined thresholds based on % of actual requirement, and at
>>> each
>>> threshold the system would require a set of tasks (played day-to-day at
>>> PC
>>> level) or +1 skill, say Engineering (played at the long-term/fleet
>>> level)
>>> to keep the ship running effectively. I was already starting to put
>>> this
>>> into designs in fuel purifiers and power plants that couldn't run the
>>> whole ship at the same time (FP in the form of time to process full
>>> load,
>>> time to process J1, etc., or PP can run this, but not that at same
>>> time)
>>> and was going to define engineering tasks for "here's what it takes to
>>> seamlessly switch power between these systems under duress," but didn't
>>> get there before the lights started going out at GDW. I was really
>>> looking
>>> forward to this, because players and refs and ship designers and fleet
>>> builders who like "crunchy" details would have enjoyed it, although not
>>> everyone would have used it, as it would have raised the level of
>>> detail.
>>>
>>> 2. I did some work over the years on a ship design system kind of
>>> broadly
>>> based on things like the pre-WWI British-German naval arms race that
>>> was
>>> like Uxi's system, except that instead of player skills, it would be
>>> based
>>> on investment in industrial plant and research through-put, where
>>> instead
>>> of a one-size-fits-all "tech level" the different nations (wet navy) or
>>> races (SF) would have a "State-of-the-Art" (SOTA) which represented
>>> their
>>> farthest mass-producible engineering solutions. Obviously this would
>>> not
>>> be Traveller, as the global TL is exactly what it was NOT doing.
>>> Rather,
>>> it would be more like Imperium or Task Force's StarFire or Star Fleet
>>> Battles. The SOTA would be defined in several areas, engineering
>>> plants,
>>> weapons systems, sensor suites, etc. and these would embed various
>>> design
>>> trade-offs, so that one player might have systems that were lighter or
>>> faster, while another might have systems that were more robust or
>>> damage
>>> resistant, and these would interact to allow them to create ships that
>>> were distinctively different, and would have different implications for
>>> how they were operationally used, both at the fleet level and within
>>> the
>>> design. Another example of this from the pre-WW1 arms race would be the
>>> way the British a continuous powder train and the Germans had better
>>> ammunition hoist practices which affected rate of fire, but also meant
>>> the
>>> Brits were more susceptible to catastrophic damage from flash. This is
>>> very similar in feel and intent to what Uxi describes. I would say,
>>> "great
>>> minds think alike," but that would mean complimenting myself.
>>>
>>> Obviously Uxi's idea, though cool for your individual "IMTU," would be
>>> a
>>> difficult fit over top of Traveller UWPs. As the UWPs were already
>>> sufficiently buggy to begin with, adding an additional layer of
>>> interpretation over top of them would make everyone's head explode.
>>>
>>> Finally, "Bonus Dave Crunchy Hooey," the mention of "folio games." One
>>> thing we learned at GDW was that every time we tried to define a new
>>> way
>>> to knock out a "simple, quick" product that would free up design time
>>> for
>>> the bigger projects it always worked in reverse. The time required to
>>> develop them always became disproportionate to what we could make back
>>> on
>>> them proportionate to their size. The series of "folios" (what did we
>>> call
>>> them?) we put out for MT, Dark Con, and Twilight were blood baths. It
>>> turns out, as famously observed by Mark Twain, that it takes longer to
>>> write short than it takes to simply allow something to run long
>>> (observe
>>> my e-mails, for example), just so you can set a lower price point for
>>> it.
>>> Another "hey, here's a good quickie we can knock out" idea was Star
>>> Vikings. I think the end product was good, but it was not quick, nor a
>>> time-saver.
>>>
>>> Ah, well, life's a bitch, and then you die. There are trolls out there
>>> who
>>> will observe that this demonstrates the need for real business models
>>> and
>>> MBAs in the gaming industry. When I was in the biz, GDW was still a
>>> remnant of the "mom 'n' pop" operations that gave us the "golden age of
>>> wargaming," and that's where a lot of its fun and eclecticism came
>>> from.
>>> Besides, anyone with an MBA would know that there wasn't enough money
>>> in
>>> that sort of wargaming to begin with. The two answers to that, WotC and
>>> computer games are 1) life lessons on what happens when you get it, and
>>> 2)
>>> it's a completely different industry completely underwritten by
>>> deliberate
>>> government tax breaks. Welfare state for "slackers," perhaps.
>>>
>>> > That resonates with how in another Draft, skills could/should be
>>> > integrated in. I like the idea of FFS being a *players* manual
>>> instead
>>> of
>>> > a
>>> > ref one. The *character* can only do it, if they have the appropriate
>>> > Advanced skills. And even once a design was done, a prototype would
>>> have
>>> > to be constructed the GM would run an opposed roll and introduce a
>>> number
>>> > of flaws/bugs (based on complexity, maintenance, and wear) into the
>>> > prototype that have to be discovered the hard way during testing and
>>> > evaluations.
>>> >
>>> > Then, tooling could be made for mass production, or slightly cheaper
>>> > refined copies of prototype could be made depending on the funding
>>> > available.
>>> >
>>> > Ultimately that could hint towards an economic modeling in the rpg,
>>> if
>>> not
>>> > into a UWP extension (ideally reverse conpatible with the existing
>>> codes,
>>> > particularly government and law).
>>> >
>>> > Which brings in more specific addendems in specific regional models
>>> (Path
>>> > of Tears vs RSB etc) if not things like folio adventures for the
>>> world
>>> of
>>> > the month and Vampire Fleets, etc. Which brings to mind the "society"
>>> of
>>> > Parent Virus entities I designed on the edge of Alpha Crucis/Leonis
>>> and
>>> > their economy-equivalent...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > - Sent from my SM-N900T
>>> > On Mar 8, 2014 10:48 AM, <> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> For those just joining us, "WTH" may or may not stand for "What the
>>> >> Huh?"
>>> >> the lost TNE book.
>>> >>
>>> >> > Fair point. The WTH mass combat system essentially has the players
>>> >> acting
>>> >> > as commanders back at headquarters.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > But on page 63 of WTH you (or another author) put some rules for
>>> >> trying
>>> >> > to integrate PCs into the mass combat system. These assumed a PC
>>> was
>>> >> > acting as commander or military advisor for a particular mass
>>> combat
>>> >> unit
>>> >> > in the field.
>>> >>
>>> >> That sounds like the sort of thing I would do (either assigned or
>>> seeing
>>> >> a
>>> >> gap, throw myself on, usually the latter) and leads to my
>>> recollection
>>> >> "there were gaps between the poles." If I made the time to dig WTH
>>> out
>>> I
>>> >> could tell you who wrote it, as it's obviously easy-ish to pick out
>>> my
>>> >> writing from Frank's or Terry's.
>>> >>
>>> >> > WTH also had the black powder design sequences that were an
>>> addition
>>> >> to
>>> >> > FF&S.
>>> >>
>>> >> Yes, I do remember those. I think Terry made a stab at it and then
>>> Frank
>>> >> re-did it. There was also a "choo-choo train design system" that I
>>> >> dropped
>>> >> because it mostly got at the visual appearance of a locomotive and
>>> >> didn't
>>> >> adequately touch on their engineering-physics (tractive effort,
>>> wheels
>>> >> for
>>> >> speed vs. pulling power, size of boiler vs. combustion unit), and
>>> for
>>> >> the
>>> >> ROI was not worth the design time. Someone probably also tried a
>>> >> "sword-pike-pointy stick" design system at one point.
>>> >>
>>> >> One "design system" that I definitely try to avert my eyes from is
>>> the
>>> >> "battle dress design system." It was one of those bad ideas where
>>> >> someone
>>> >> from the Art Dept said, "hey, shouldn't there be a design system for
>>> >> this?" "Yeah, we don't have to send this to the printer until 5:00,
>>> and
>>> >> it's 2:00 now, so we've got time," so it was written half at the
>>> >> conference table and half at someone's desk. When asked, "whaddaya
>>> >> think?"
>>> >> there wasn't enough time to form specific logical objections, the
>>> best
>>> >> one, "there39;s not enough time" having already been excluded.
>>> >>
>>> >> There was a spaceship design system made for Hard Times that was
>>> >> extremely
>>> >> detailed and fiddly and mostly seemed to be made to allow players to
>>> >> design "every rocket propulsion system you've ever heard of," but it
>>> had
>>> >> that two-fold TL problem where 1) it focused on all of these
>>> different
>>> >> approaches that only fall into a fraction of one TL, and therefore
>>> from
>>> >> the standpoint of the larger game don't haul much freight, and 2)
>>> the
>>> >> top-down logic that says TL ultimately has to be focused on "what
>>> was
>>> >> found to work," not things that were tried but failed. But HT is
>>> >> arguably
>>> >> a MT product, so doesn't belong here. Spiritually it was a
>>> transition
>>> >> product, but game system is obviously MT. There are a large number
>>> of
>>> >> "MT"
>>> >> products that are spiritually TNE products: Arrival Vengeance,
>>> >> Astrogator39;s Guide to Diaspora, Assignment: Vigilante, some other
>>> stuff
>>> >> I
>>> >> can't think of. It makes it hard for me to remember "when did you
>>> start
>>> >> work on TNE" because it literally goes back to my first day at GDW
>>> in
>>> >> one
>>> >> form or another.
>>> >>
>>> >> Last thought, there was always a typical error on the part of
>>> >> "design-system designers" to mistake "when we on Earth got around to
>>> >> thinking of a logical solution" for an actual TECHNICAL change
>>> (e.g.,
>>> >> superfiring guns, ballast tanks in submarines, multiple locomotive
>>> >> units,
>>> >> etc.), which caused me to reject a lot of design sequences over the
>>> >> years.
>>> >> I would rather not have a thing than publish one that is wrong. In
>>> >> fairness, it is easy to see how this confusion begins, as it's not
>>> >> always
>>> >> easy to separate "this is now possible/embedded technically" from
>>> >> "there39;s
>>> >> now enough related technical that it's easier for people to say, 'oh
>>> >> yeah...'". That is especially the case where TL is saying two
>>> utterly
>>> >> different things in the "pure" Traveller rules, where it is merely
>>> >> descriptive and can be (theoretically) based on multiple parallel
>>> >> technology systems (think tech for an aquatic species vs. tech for a
>>> >> terrestrial species) all governed by the same laws of physics, vs.
>>> what
>>> >> it
>>> >> is saying in the 3I campaign background where it tends to reflect
>>> the
>>> >> dissemination of core Imperial technology. There's also the
>>> >> understandable
>>> >> tendency of writers to fall back on real world or Star Trek
>>> examples:
>>> >> "this was solved by Thomas Edison or Dr. Richard Daystrom with the
>>> XXX,"
>>> >> but TL is not defined by a guy, that guy is just the expression of
>>> that
>>> >> TL
>>> >> "fact" (a.k.a. "hooey assertion") in that timeline.
>>> >>
>>> >> To conclude, some TL vs. discovered principles things ARE easy. The
>>> best
>>> >> example of this is germ theory. The benefits of germ theory do NOT
>>> arise
>>> >> at TL...(whatever late 1800s Earth is). You can tell TL 0 people,
>>> "don't
>>> >> build your toilets next to your drinking fountains" and it works
>>> just
>>> >> fine. If you're describing an isolated species with no transmission
>>> of
>>> >> knowledge from more advanced people, yes, they probably have to
>>> invent
>>> >> microscopes first to figure it out on their own. But you could just
>>> as
>>> >> easily posit that they are psionic and can sense the presence of
>>> tiny
>>> >> life
>>> >> forms all around them so don't need microscopes, or say that they
>>> just
>>> >> evolved to be neat freaks so gain the practical benefits of germ
>>> theory
>>> >> (at least in prevention of disease) without having to reach a
>>> certain
>>> >> TL.
>>> >> It's SF, if you're not confounding someone's pre-suppositions
>>> somewhere,
>>> >> you might as well stick with crossword puzzles.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>