Our group has 2 GM’s that run opposite one another. So X is running now, and I am trying to convince them both to use the core system.
The end of the story: Mr. W has elected to create his own system based on the number of successes (generated by the book system for rewards/promotions), rather than using the three stage Milestones of the books. I will present the homebrew system when I can remember to have it in hand.
Not if the time travel itself was accidental. The concept of violating a law or regulation implies willful action, so my ruling would be that time travel can only violate the Temporal Prime Directive if undertaken with conscious intent. That doesn’t mean that DTI wouldn’t be scrutinizing the daylights out of the incident for violations.
Temporal Prime Directive (if I remember correctly) applies to altering the timeline, or divulging future events to people in/from the past. Anything that could alter the timeline falls under the Temporal Prime Directive, either intentional or accidental. Just arriving in the past by accident won’t violate it, but most interactions in the past if not careful could violate the directive.
My interpretation of this is that all three bullet points would have to apply for a Character to receive a Milestone for two reasons.
First of all the wording is “whether each Player did the following” not “any of the following” before the list.
Secondly, the uses of the word or within the first and third bullet point suggests that there are no "or"s implied between the bullet points. Otherwise there would be separate bullet points for Value, Directive, Positively and Negatively, instead of such wordiness covering various possibilities in a single point.
My other question, which is what brought me here in the first place is, how do I reconcile the apparent conflict between the earlier statement in the rules that if one challenges a value one can reword it as a matter of course at the end of the adventure, and its appearance here as one of the options to choose for a Normal Milestone reward? If a character can do it anyway, why would they choose it here instead of something else? But if they in fact cannot, then why is it stated elsewhere in the rules in a way that suggests they can?
Incidentally this is a third reason why I interpreted the above as I did, since merely challenging a Value according to earlier parts of the rules simply results in being able to reword the Value and gain a point of Determination, so suggesting that that alone (or either of the other criteria alone) actually warrants a Milestone doesn’t fit with that, as far as I can see.
Hi, by the way. This is my first post. I’ve just familiarised myself with rules this month and have scripted my first story and will be having an induction session over zoom with some players next weekend. Very much looking forward to it. 
There’s a fourth reason as well. In the next column under Spotlight Milestones, it says a player must meet the requirements (plural) for a Normal Milestone to be eligible for a Spotlight Milestone. So I really don’t see how one can qualify by ticking only one of the boxes.
Hi saxbend, welcome aboard! 
As I read the normal milestones paragraph on p. 139 of the Core Rule Book, the requirements (plural) to be met are:
Thus, there are two requirements, the first regarding presence and the second being to fulfill at least one of three listed criterions. You do not have to fulfill all of those criterions at the same time, but only one (and possibly more, it makes no difference).
Note that the list on p. 239 is intended to remind the GM to keep track of the players’ actions that could result in awarding a milestone (“you should take note of whether each Player did the following”). Indeed, the sentence in between the lists should be read as “If they did any of the above then award them a Normal Milestone”. I have to admit the rules are a bit misleading, here.
There actually is a conflict, but a rather small one (and it’s not where you think it is 
). Challenging a value makes that value unusable for the remainder of the mission. At the end of the mission, you can always decide to simply uncross the value to be used freely within the next mission. Since challenging a value makes the respective (main) character eligible for a milestone if they were present in at least half of the mission’s scenes (see above), and since this criterion is most likely fulfilled most of the time a Player is actually present, there’s almost always the possibility to change the value with the acquired milestone. The paragraph about altering the value on p. 88 seems to imply that you almost always meet the presence-requirement and, thus, should be seen as a declaratory hint.
A character can alter a value by using a milestone. P. 88 seems to assume that you will meet the presence-requirements. That is actually very probable, since most adventures seem to comprise of three to six scenes. Since only a limited amount of supporting characters can be introduced during each mission/adventure (cf. p. 134) it should be very seldom that players fail this requirement. In most cases, each player will have the opportunity to use supporting character(s) once or twice in a mission/adventure and thus will still meet the requirement. I think this rather minor detail was omitted on p. 88 to not overcomplicate things. Both p. 139 and p. 239 are quite clear that the way to change a value is via a challenge and the use of a milestone.
That being said, I want to encourage you to look at the character development rules in the Klingon Core Book (pp. 127 ff.). The system is very different from the system in the Core Rulebook. First, it is completely player-driven (omitting e.g. choosing/voting who will get character development), second it is faster in developing characters, third it uses logs, connecting it to a trope of the TV show.
Note, though, that it uses terms a bit misleading, in case you come directly from the Core Rulebook. E.g., a milestone under the Klingon system roughly equals a spotlight milestone of the Core rules. Also, while you could keep a value unchanged by even multiple challenges during several missions, the Klingon Core rules encourage you to rewrite a challenged value, every time. Doing so is no longer tied to expending character benefit (“milestone”).
(While I’m at it: I’m a huge fan of the Klingon Reputation system. In case you own the book, I’d highly recommend to look it up, there.)
I’ve always completely ignored the Spotlight and Arc Milestone rules in the book. I just handed them out as appropriate to the adventure.
But reiterating what @MisterX mentioned: I also love the Milestone system from the Klingon book. Being entirely player driven and revolving around the character’s Values is just much more immersive. Also “forcing” the players to keep a log is perfect for our campaign structure, since there are usually weeks between campaigns.
Makes me think of Star Trek Online…
Howdy!..
This is not the case - you have to meet one of the bullet points, not all three. Flaws within the text are because this was one of the last sections I designed for the game, and part of the editing and revision of it was done while the book was in layout, restricting the changes I could make to the text.
A challenged Value requires a normal milestone reward to rewrite it. Again, this set of rules was written late in the game’s development and that led to inconsistencies in the text.
That’s why I pushed @Modiphius-Jim to let me rewrite the advancement and reputation rules for the Klingon book.
Actually, the inconsistency is a very minor one as it only does not take into account the possibility of being too enthusiastic in involving supporting characters (see above). I’d say the main reason for confusion is the fact that there are two sections where character development is adressed; one from players’ and one from GMs’ perspective.
And it came out great!
But as we’re already at it: I can understand why modifying challenged Values is now free and no longer requires expending the benefits of a log entry.
But I kind of miss the “being target of a lethal attack”-option to acquire the benefits of what was called a “milestone” in the Core Rules. Of course, being target of a lethal attack is nothing a Klingon doesn’t experience on a regular tuesday.
But I always liked the concept of character growth around dramatic situations.
For a Starfleet Officer, being target of a killing attempt is not everyday business. We’ve seen characters on screen changing after experiencing armed violence. So I’d like to keep this in my games. Yet, it does cause som friction with the system being tied to values (and directives). Do you have any suggestion to work it back in?
Off the top of my head, I’d lean towards tying this into the recovery, rather than the injury itself (there’s less room for character growth if the injury kills you). Strictly, recovery is handled more by a doctor treating the injury than by the person who suffered it, but using a Value positively to gain an advantage (“Will to survive”) so you can assist the doctor’s roll would be fitting. Similarly, if the injury your character suffered came because of a complication they gained when using a Value negatively, then that’s likely to change one’s perspective on life.
Tell him you’ll run Traveller if he doesn’t stop complaining about not getting new kewl skillz and powerz every other session. 
Thanks very much, that’s very helpful. I have probably been trying to learn too much in too short a time and getting myself confused (like cramming for an exam without ever having attended the school lessons during the year).
I had hoped to be able to get going without purchasing any additional rulebooks too soon, but I’ll bear your recommendation of the Klingon book in mind. Thanks again!
If you’re willing to wait a while, the rulebook in the forthcoming TOS tricorder set will contain all the clarifications and rules updates from the Klingon book, but in a more Starfleet package