Egil Skallagrimsson wrote:It's not about logic, it's about playability. I don't see the supplements you list as adding "complexity" at all, just different options.
Background and explanation isn't a bad thing. I think a number of people have agreed that isn't the case with them.
Egil Skallagrimsson wrote:For those who feel their gaming will be enhanced by more book keeping, then there are other versions of trav, or write your own.
Why does it seem that whenever somebody questions the order of things the response of "go away - we don't want your stinking questions" come up? It would be just as rude (but totally applicable) to tell you to go away too with your response if you don't like the thread.
Egil Skallagrimsson wrote:Just another thought about fusion power plants in MgT, we seem to be working on the assumption (and, of course, these are fictional assumptions about a technology which doesn't exist and may never exist in this form, or even at all) that they run a bit like petrol engines, and the more power we need, the more fuel we burn. What if they are much more binary, essentially off, no power, no fuel consumption, or on lots of power (much of which might have to be vented if there is not immediate use for it), steady fuel consumption?
Today, with fission power, you can adjust the power output and extend/reduce the life of your fuel, right? It's true for civilian power plants as it is for military ones. The book just plain got it wrong with the explanation of nuclear power as it exists today
. Since we don't have working fusion tech, contragravity, jump drives, or are flying amongst the stars, I'm sure most players are well aware that this is a science-fiction game
we are playing. I'd like to point out that 1/3rd of that label is "science". So any person wanting to apply science to their game is perfectly within the defined context. "Fiction" comes around when you start talking about uplifted dolphins, ancient beings and kitty-cats and doggies with nukes and starships. The "game" is where you want to combine the former two and still have fun.
This thread was started to discuss the never-ending discussion regarding the apparently huge fuel consumption that entails powering a Traveller ship's fusion reactor. Exactly why this is a big deal has to do with one thing - tonnage. A different fuel burn rate means you have more tonnage to play with with which to do other things.
If you (or anyone else - I don't want you feel I'm singling you out, just using your quote of my quote) are fine with the rules as they are, then feel free to ignore the thread. If you would like to be a useful contributor, please share with the rest of us your thoughts. But if you only want to tell the rest of us to "just accept it or go find another game", kindly don't respond. Or start your own thread where you can discuss why exactly the game is perfect just the way it is and there should never,ever be a discussion about a rule, a deckplan or the underlying reasoning for such things.
And do please keep in mind the "you" is the euphemistically "you" - NOT any one individual.