Pauli writes:
> If you read this far on a PC then you're system will be infected and
> your life is just about over!!! ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Luckily, I was using my trusty Amiga 1000; wrong processor and a real
operating system - too much for your simple virus to deal with ;-)
Steve Higginbotham writes:
> So you've decided to live in dreamland too? I'm depressed...
> Play Star Wars! If you are going to ignore physics just to make it feel
> good, then play AD&D! If you are going to throw out the physics, you
> might as well start using magic in a big way, and settle for
> Spelljammers...
The name of the game is science FICTION role-playing. Getting the
science right is important; don't doubt that I take some good care in
getting the science believable. However, at some level of detail,
absolute scientific accuracy has to take a backseat to storytelling.
I described (and clearly labelled) what I would do if I had to make the
call as a referee *right then*. I *know* it's not scientifically
accurate, but it should be good enough for the story to continue.
As opposed to raising a problem and then heckling everybody while we
puzzle it out, what would you do? I realize that you're in a bad mood
(probably from reading too much Star Viking background in T:TNE), but
try to be constructive here.
Jason Proctor writes:
> Seems like they've changed a lot of stuf that could have stayed the same
> why 2D6-1 instead of 2D6? Or starting previous ex at 18 instead of 17? Strange
> seemingly random changes.
Most of those sorts of changes are for compatibility with Twilight:2000
(Merc:2000) and Dark Conspiracy. T:TNE uses the current version of the
GDW "House" (read T2k) role-playing system.
> Over in the RuneQuest mailing list, the authors of RQ4 (new version similar in
> scale and impact to TNE) are emailing beta versions around for any old bod to
> comment on and pick holes in. The result is an enormous amount of playtesting
> being done and game systems emerging that are solid and universally accepted
> (after heated discussions, etc, admittedly). Did GDW do anything similar for
> TNE? If not, why not? Wouldn't it have been great for everyone to have a hand
> in the new Trav, and as a side benefit not have any errata to speak of?
No, GDW didn't do that for T:TNE, although they did post the character
generation system for comments. I'm not sure why not; several of us
here on the Net specifically asked that they do so. Such an approach
would have been a very good idea; I feel that the character generation
system is much better for the comments and suggestions it generated as a
result of being here on the net. And yes; about two weeks with a draft
of the rules and we could have stomped out the errata very effectively.
Matt Harelick writes:
> I lost interest in MT is because you really could not play it without using
> the Imperium. Now what I want to know is is it possible to play TNE without
> using the GDW Universe?
Sure you can. Admittedly, a lot of the material in the book refers to
the "official" campaign universe. However, T:TNE is (IMHO) as amenable
to "roll-your-own" universes as the original Classic Traveller was. You
may want to wait for the Technical Architecture book, though, so theat
you can design your own tech gadgets.
And at $25, it's a lot more feasable to pick up T:TNE on speculation (on
the chance that it might be what you want) than a lot of other games.
Steve Higginbotham writes:
> The Traveller Done Wrong Working Group (TDW).
> In that vein, I'd like to extend a personal invitation to Wildstar,
> Hans, and Bertil to start this Working Group off with a bang.
> Hopefully, you all can have a report ready REAL SOON NOW...
Not needed, Steve. It looks like you've got the first draft all
ready to go. I certainly can't speak for Hans and Bertil, but what I an
trying to do is explain the following observations:
A fusion drive operated towards a planet will flatten forests, and cause
thermal damage for kilometers around the landing/takeoff site. For
hundreds of meters around the ship, it will be intense enough to
melt and fuse soil, and will excavate a crater hundreds of meters deep.
You yourself calculated that the gross effects would be similar to a
three megaton fusion bomb detonated at ground level. I should note that
the radiation effects (induced radiation in the soil, radioactive
fallout) would be similar to a fusion bomb as well. In addition,
various and sundry radioactive gasses would be emitted into the
atmosphere. Altogether nasty.
On takeoff, the ship will be sitting in the
center of all of that; unless the ship accellerates out faster than the
front of all of these varous effects (which is possible, but with a 1g
drive on a world with 1g surface gravity?), it will be *in* that mess
for some non-zero amount of time. If the ship landed under fusion
power, it's going to have to stay put until the fused soil melts away
from the landing carriage.
However, all of the available Traveller (Classic, MegaTraveller, and New
Era) points to a very different model of ship operations. Wilderness
landings and takeoffs don't leave giant craters about the world; all you
need is a relatively flat patch of clear, hard ground. It is aparrently
perfectly safe for an unprotected human to stand a few hundred meters
from a starship taking off. This definitely doesn't fit the fusion
drive model.
Therefore, starships operating close to a world don't use fusion drives
when doing so. You propose that they use scramjets for propulsion in an
atmosphere. Aside from the obvious problems when operating near a
vacuum world or on a world with an oxygenless exotic, insidious, or
corrosive atmosphere, there are other problems with this suggestion. A
scramjet (SupersoniCRAMJET) needs for the ship to already have
significant forward velocity before it will produce thrust; not a
problem for landing, but what about takeoffs? Secondly, adding such
propulsion to a starship would seem to me to be a rather serious retcon.
I have proposed two mechanisms, both of which seem (in my humble
opinion) to be less of a retcon, and more in the spirit of Traveller.
While you have managed to produce a post virtually ensuring a
significant flame-fest, you haven't managed to comment on any of my
recent proposals in any serious manner.
As far as thge possibilities of operating a fusion drive near a
planetary surface or close to a large solid object in deep space, I've
had a chance to do some more thinking. I still feel that there is a
chance (depending on the amount of damage the starship wishes to do, and
the degree of success rolled by the pilot attempting the task) of damage
to the ship. THe closer you are, the better the damage done, but the
higher your chances of being accidentally engulfed in the cloud of very
hot, radioactive gas. Even for an instant, that could cause damage.
Secondly, while the temprature of the fusion exhaust is very high, the
mass flow is very low; I don't know enough about plasma physics to even
begin to calculate what that would do in an atmosphere of any density.
It seems to me that it's possible that the drive would "choke"
and fail to function properly or at all; possibly with damage to the
drive mechanism.
Unless and until someone can come up with some better physics; as a game
ruling (based on referee's judgement of possible effects, playability,
and general story needs) I would *still* say that running a fusion drive
in an atmosphere will cause serios damage to the drive and/or ship.
Running it agains a vacuum world or large asteroid would have a good
chance of damaging the ship, too; particularly as the amount of damage
increases, although not as seriously as I first estimated. If a player
asked how much damage to the ship, I would probably reply along the
lines of "You don't know; as far as you can remember, nobody's ever
tried. Do you want to be the first?".
At some point, additional scientific (or economic, or social, or
anything) accuracy becomes detrimental to the game. The exact point
depends on the technical sophistication of the players and the referee.
When it comes right down to it, none of your players have ever seen a
starship except through their imaginations. When you've got enough
science that they can successfully suspend disbelief of your fiction,
that's enough. Any more is actually distracting.
> PS. My, I'm getting acid these days...
You are. You really should make the effort to be less so; it doesn't
help you make your point, and it certainly doesn't help raise my opinion
of you. Maybe you should put less battery acid in your coffee? ;-)
> "Traveller Done Wrong - Let's get the Science OUT of Science Fiction
> Roleplaying...."
"Traveller Done Wrong - Let's let the quest for absolute scientific
accuracy hobble our game until we all degenerate into obscure physics
arguments and never get any role-playing done ..."
[email removed]
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science-Fiction Adventure
in the Far Future