A seventh decade
Timothy Collinson
(12 May 2025 03:14 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A seventh decade
Vareck
(12 May 2025 03:56 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A seventh decade
Timothy Collinson
(12 May 2025 06:43 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A seventh decade
James Catchpole
(12 May 2025 07:54 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A seventh decade
Timothy Collinson
(12 May 2025 10:15 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A seventh decade
Timothy Collinson
(12 May 2025 10:34 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A seventh decade
Alex Goodwin
(12 May 2025 21:29 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A seventh decade
Timothy Collinson
(12 May 2025 21:35 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A seventh decade Alex Goodwin (13 May 2025 10:43 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A seventh decade
Tom Rux
(12 May 2025 12:40 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A seventh decade
Timothy Collinson
(12 May 2025 21:30 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A seventh decade
Phil Pugliese
(13 May 2025 00:18 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A seventh decade
Tom Rux
(13 May 2025 02:04 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A seventh decade
Phil Pugliese
(13 May 2025 16:59 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A seventh decade
Tom Rux
(13 May 2025 23:09 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A seventh decade
Timothy Collinson
(14 May 2025 05:12 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A seventh decade
Phil Pugliese
(14 May 2025 05:35 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A seventh decade
Timothy Collinson
(14 May 2025 13:22 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A seventh decade
Jeff Zeitlin
(16 May 2025 12:04 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A seventh decade
Tom Rux
(16 May 2025 15:32 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A seventh decade
Michael Houghton
(16 May 2025 18:39 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A seventh decade
Charles McKnight
(16 May 2025 19:22 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A seventh decade
Timothy Collinson
(16 May 2025 19:45 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] A seventh decade
Timothy Collinson
(16 May 2025 19:44 UTC)
|
> > > > Of course, knowing PCs, the abnormal load is their target of > interest: > > 1 the load itself is the target > > 2 something hidden on the load is the target > > 3 someone transporting the load (or on the accompanying small craft) > > 4 the something or someone isn't as vulnerable as it might seem and > > the PCs (and / or others) are expected to try something, but > there's > > opposition > > 5 their info is wrong and the target of interest isn't actually of > > interest > > 6 the target of interest isn't what the PCs were expecting and is > > *much more* interesting. For entirely different reasons. > > > Collision, > > Congrats on the birthday. > > > Cheers! > > > As for your "abnormal load in highport vicinity" question, you could > also chuck in: > > additional traffic restrictions; > > traffic control freaking out due to some of their kit playing up; > > a large (for whatever setting you're using - eg Interstellar Wars > would > be 10 kdton+) (para)military vessel whose exclusion zone the abnormal > load _has_ to traverse; > > a diplomatic vessel whose captain is determined to lift, come what > may, > and of _course_ its course takes it close to the abnormal load; > > > > Oooh, nice. I'll need a larger table. > > As an alternative, have the PCs on _defense_ as starport personnel ? Not as front-line load-movers, but one or two steps removed (so guess who gets to deal with the _fallout_?), or as a red team (or tiger team) brought in to look at the status quo sufficiently cockeyed to try to head off such a caper? Alex