--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 10/23/15, Bruce Johnson <xxxxxx@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [TML] High Guard missile bay launch
 To: "xxxxxx@simplelists.com" <xxxxxx@simplelists.com>
 Date: Friday, October 23, 2015, 2:58 PM

 > On
 Oct 23, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Phil Pugliese (via tml list)
 <xxxxxx@simplelists.com>
 wrote:
 >
 > I think
 this illustrates a common problem for any sci-fi rpg.
 > So much of it has to be 'made-up'
 that the more 'pseudo'-detailed it gets, the easier
 it is to see the flaws.
 > As Trav became
 more & more detailed, not only was more errata required
 (re:MT), but I actually found it to be less & less
 appealing
 > I finally fell back to CT,
 where, like StarWars, all the cool stuff, "just
 worked", & one could play w/o worrying about
 why.

 Well, given that the
 example I posted was from CT, it’s kind of clear it
 doesn’t ‘just work’ save with ‘because this is what
 the rules say’.

 Perfectly
 acceptable for playing a game, just don’t try to reconcile
 it with reality :-)

 Also
 giving  PC’s a box full of 60,000 km-range radar and
 mass-guided sidewinder missiles isn’t bad, but only in
 comparison to giving them nukes :-P

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

Well, yeah, but judicious use of 'Clarke's Law' is always needed to make Trav (& just about all the sci-fi rpg's I've known) work, still, in the end, "The play's the thing", right? And, in my experience, all the jiggery-pokery that was intended to  make it all "more realistic" just created a lot more 'unrealism' &, worst of all, made the game more complicated & thus harder to play.
"giving them nukes" is a very good example of good intentions (trying for more realism) backfiring, IMO.

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