Adventure-Class Ships

[Arkathan]

Just like bad rolls can lead to wasted time, at my table, good rolls cut their travel time.
Since they are frequently tracking bounties/bad guys (or "bad guys in their eyes") it gives them a chance to reduce their opponent's lead.
Not RAW, but they enjoy the mechanic, so Rule Zero reigns.

 

[Vormaerin]

There's mechanics for that regarding Jump in the Companion (and other places. I think there's actually three different rules sets for how astrogation affects time and duration of jumps). And now in Cluster Truck they have rules for astrogation being useful in plotting faster (aka riskier) flight paths in real space.

And the original statement was just that one reason that travel seems less safe than the original designers' statements is because the rules have introduced a variety of die rolls that didn't previously exist and which are, often, rather challenging. Or require the explicit presence of off setting resources that were not originally required.

I'm a big fan of making Astrogation actually *do* something useful if it is going to be its own skill and a mandatory crew role. But that's a completely different topic from how safe space travel is.

 

[rinku]

For sure - skills need to be useful. Although Astrogation is usually in the mode of Steward - mostly there to qualify for a job.

But like higher levels of Steward being required to cater for larger numbers of passengers, you could say as a house or setting rule that higher Jump rated ships would normally employ higher levels of Astrogator. One Astrogation level per two jump levels feels about right, meaning your basic J-1 and J-2 ships are fine with Astrogator-1, but the J-3 ones are going to want someone with a bit more experience or expertise. A serious Naval warship with J-5 (i.e. Lightning class) would be unlikely to post a novice as Chief Astrogator; nor would they have much trouble finding that Astrogator-3.

I mean, the rules do make long jump calculations far from trivial without higher levels of Astrogation, so it makes game sense as well.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

I'm a big fan of making Astrogation actually *do* something useful if it is going to be its own skill and a mandatory crew role. But that's a completely different topic from how safe space travel is.

I'm considering the idea that the Astrogator doesn't just plot the jump but is effectively the pilot in Jump Space. In effect the Astrogator manoeuvres the Jump Bubble around "obstacles" that can't be plotted accurately like interstellar comets that could otherwise pull you out of Jump. Also lets you manoeuvre around jump shadows. Sort of what the Niven Known Space hyperdrive pilot does but using normal instruments in the bubble to shift the bubble course interactively. Interrupting the Astrogator during the final hours of Jump could cause "issues".

 

[Vormaerin]

For sure - skills need to be useful. Although Astrogation is usually in the mode of Steward - mostly there to qualify for a job.

But like higher levels of Steward being required to cater for larger numbers of passengers, you could say as a house or setting rule that higher Jump rated ships would normally employ higher levels of Astrogator. One Astrogation level per two jump levels feels about right, meaning your basic J-1 and J-2 ships are fine with Astrogator-1, but the J-3 ones are going to want someone with a bit more experience or expertise. A serious Naval warship with J-5 (i.e. Lightning class) would be unlikely to post a novice as Chief Astrogator; nor would they have much trouble finding that Astrogator-3.

I mean, the rules do make long jump calculations far from trivial without higher levels of Astrogation, so it makes game sense as well.

Even more of a tangent, but Steward has a wide range of useful applications outside of just being on the ship. It's a social skill useful for conflict management and appeasing upset people, it provides some practical skills (culinary arts and tailoring), and is key for other kinds of hosting situations, such as catering events or hosting a soiree. Not to mention being that undercover agent who is infiltrating the staff of a party as part of your spy scheme.

Had a player in my last campaign that ended up with Steward 3 as their best skill and was initially nonplussed, but it ended up being extremely useful in the campaign. Being able to talk with wine snobs, adjust stolen uniforms to fit better, just so many uses for a group that did a lot of heist type activities.

 

[rinku]

There's a case to combine Pilot and Astrogation in my mind. One specialty for system stuff another for Jump stuff. Maybe a third for interface and docking? I'm not a huge fan of it being a different specialty based on ship size. So something like:

Pilot
Specialties
* Interstellar Astrogation - used to calculate Jump plots
* System Astrogation - used to chart courses within a system
* Helm - used to maneuver vessels in relation to each other including docking and evasion, and for interface tasks.

As it is, Pilot has this legacy division between small craft and ships, and a pointless big ship specialty that PCs would only take for roleplaying reasons. Large ships don't even land on planets much, and space stations will be catering to THEM, or they'll be using small craft anyway, so are their pilots even using the specialty?

 

[Condottiere]

All certified ship masters should have astrogation/zero.

 

[rinku]

My suggestion would cover that automatically.

Even in ship crew positions, the Astrogator is commonly the co-pilot. So it also makes sense that that certified Astrogators should have Pilot-0. Again, this idea covers that.

 

[rinku]

You could easily go with Astrogation and Orbital Mechanics. It's not as if calculating an orbital transfer has much to do with distant stars.

 

[Vormaerin]

In my last game, the specialties were Pilot, Astrogation, and Aerospace. Even if capital ships required a different pilot skill, it's not one that will ever actually matter in any of my games so having it isn't important. But I also use 2300 style orbital transfers rather than "lifters" so the distinction between operating in space and operating in and around the atmosphere matters more.

 

[swordtart]

Even more of a tangent, but Steward has a wide range of useful applications outside of just being on the ship. It's a social skill useful for conflict management and appeasing upset people, it provides some practical skills (culinary arts and tailoring), and is key for other kinds of hosting situations, such as catering events or hosting a soiree. Not to mention being that undercover agent who is infiltrating the staff of a party as part of your spy scheme.

Had a player in my last campaign that ended up with Steward 3 as their best skill and was initially nonplussed, but it ended up being extremely useful in the campaign. Being able to talk with wine snobs, adjust stolen uniforms to fit better, just so many uses for a group that did a lot of heist type activities.

Space Jeeves

 

[swordtart]

Once you are in atmosphere, you could be substituting Flyer(Grav). Grav as whilst ships may be streamlined, they are not generally using wings. Is a launch dramatically different to a G-Carrier in its operation?

Pilot should be for non-atmosphere space stuff and could easily subsume Astrogation without too much issue (and reduce skills bloat). Having it as a specialism sounds like a good compromise.

 

[Condottiere]

I donno.

I'm thinking about using the same cockpit layout as a spacecraft, and configuring a blimp control centre that way.

(Space)pilot reverts to zero, but can fly it.

 

[WHULorigan]

Once you are in atmosphere, you could be substituting Flyer(Grav). Grav as whilst ships may be streamlined, they are not generally using wings. Is a launch dramatically different to a G-Carrier in its operation?

It probably depends upon your interpretation of Grav Vehicle vs. Spaceboat.

• Obviously in a "Reaction Drive" setting a Spaceboat may require additional significant skills for handling specializations above and beyond a simple G-module Lifter on a Grav Vehicle. As you noted, would a spaceboat be using wings or a lifting-body in atmosphere, or relying on a G-Module Lifter in tandem with its reaction drive independent of a gravitic InSystem Drive?
• If you are using G-Drives/M-Drives for your InSystem Drives, are they the same as "Lifters" in Grav Vehicles, or are they related but different subsystems? For example, in T5 Lifters ("Z-Drive" - a hull fitting for space vessels - the same technology used in grav vehicles), G-Drives, M-Drives, and N-Drives are 4 separate drive motivators. And whereas G/M-Drives (and most iterations of N-Drives) can reasonably be considered to be simple advancements of a particular technological approach, the Lifters are a clearly different Branch of the field and handle and operate differently. So do they require different training and skill, or assume different operational environments and skillsets?

It is interesting that the Traveller:TNE ruleset handled it similarly to what you suggest. They only had Reaction space drives (HEPlaR) and Congragrav Lifters (null-grav) in the setting, but Pilot for non-aircraft was "Pilot (Grav/Interface)", and so presumed that all InSystem courses were handled by the Astrogator.

There's a case to combine Pilot and Astrogation in my mind. One specialty for system stuff another for Jump stuff. Maybe a third for interface and docking? I'm not a huge fan of it being a different specialty based on ship size. So something like:

Pilot
Specialties
* Interstellar Astrogation - used to calculate Jump plots
* System Astrogation - used to chart courses within a system
* Helm - used to maneuver vessels in relation to each other including docking and evasion, and for interface tasks.

As it is, Pilot has this legacy division between small craft and ships, and a pointless big ship specialty that PCs would only take for roleplaying reasons. Large ships don't even land on planets much, and space stations will be catering to THEM, or they'll be using small craft anyway, so are their pilots even using the specialty?

Pilot should be for non-atmosphere space stuff and could easily subsume Astrogation without too much issue (and reduce skills bloat). Having it as a specialism sounds like a good compromise.

I have always considered Pilot-1 to automatically come with a presumed "Astronavigation-0" as a default going all the way back to Classic Traveller. Otherwise the proverbial "One Man Scout" in his Type-S which was almost an archetype in Classic Traveller becomes problematic. Not a whole lot of point to having training in the skill to maneuver a craft, that when it comes to application you can't reliably get from Point A to Point B without outside help. The majority of piloting from A to B is knowing how much to thrust in what direction and for how long, based on the astronavigation plot (which is rather a trivial task - especially with computer aid; the real piloting trick is calculating the thrust numbers for the trajectory).

I also as a House Rule took Astronavigation to include "Pilot-0" for non-Interface/Aerospace tasks.

Of course, in Classic Traveller (and some of these might be good House Rules to import into later rulesets):

• "Pilot" [= MgT "Pilot (Spaceship)"] automatically included the skill "Shipsboat" [= MgT "Pilot (Smallcraft)"] at level Pilot ("-1").
• "Pilot" automatically included the ability to do N-Space InSystem astronavigation as a subskill at full value.
  • Note that the skill "Shipsboat" [= MgT "Pilot (Smallcraft)"] did NOT automatically include the ability to do N-Space InSystem astronavigation as a subskill. This makes it primarily an Interface/Transfer/Docking Piloting Skill.
• "Astronavigation" covered both the ability to do N-Space InSystem astronavigation AND J-Space astronavigation plots at full value (and unofficially likewise covered Sensor-Ops/Comms, because CT originally did not have Sensor-Ops/Comms skill or position defined).

 

[phavoc]

It probably depends upon your interpretation of Grav Vehicle vs. Spaceboat.

• Obviously in a "Reaction Drive" setting a Spaceboat may require additional significant skills for handling specializations above and beyond a simple G-module Lifter on a Grav Vehicle. As you noted, would a spaceboat be using wings or a lifting-body in atmosphere, or relying on a G-Module Lifter in tandem with its reaction drive independent of a gravitic InSystem Drive?
• If you are using G-Drives/M-Drives for your InSystem Drives, are they the same as "Lifters" in Grav Vehicles, or are they related but different subsystems? For example, in T5 Lifters ("Z-Drive" - a hull fitting for space vessels - the same technology used in grav vehicles), G-Drives, M-Drives, and N-Drives are 4 separate drive motivators. And whereas G/M-Drives (and most iterations of N-Drives) can reasonably be considered to be simple advancements of a particular technological approach, the Lifters are a clearly different Branch of the field and handle and operate differently. So do they require different training and skill, or assume different operational environments and skillsets?

It is interesting that the Traveller:TNE ruleset handled it similarly to what you suggest. They only had Reaction space drives (HEPlaR) and Congragrav Lifters (null-grav) in the setting, but Pilot for non-aircraft was "Pilot (Grav/Interface)", and so presumed that all InSystem courses were handled by the Astrogator.




I have always considered Pilot-1 to automatically come with a presumed "Astronavigation-0" as a default going all the way back to Classic Traveller. Otherwise the proverbial "One Man Scout" in his Type-S which was almost an archetype in Classic Traveller becomes problematic. Not a whole lot of point to having training in the skill to maneuver a craft, that when it comes to application you can't reliably get from Point A to Point B without outside help. The majority of piloting from A to B is knowing how much to thrust in what direction and for how long, based on the astronavigation plot (which is rather a trivial task - especially with computer aid; the real piloting trick is calculating the thrust numbers for the trajectory).

I also as a House Rule took Astronavigation to include "Pilot-0" for non-Interface/Aerospace tasks.

Of course, in Classic Traveller (and some of these might be good House Rules to import into later rulesets):

• "Pilot" [= MgT "Pilot (Spaceship)"] automatically included the skill "Shipsboat" [= MgT "Pilot (Smallcraft)"] at level Pilot ("-1").
• "Pilot" automatically included the ability to do N-Space InSystem astronavigation as a subskill at full value.
  • Note that the skill "Shipsboat" [= MgT "Pilot (Smallcraft)"] did NOT automatically include the ability to do N-Space InSystem astronavigation as a subskill. This makes it primarily an Interface/Transfer/Docking Piloting Skill.
• "Astronavigation" covered both the ability to do N-Space InSystem astronavigation AND J-Space astronavigation plots at full value (and unofficially likewise covered Sensor-Ops/Comms, because CT originally did not have Sensor-Ops/Comms skill or position defined).

Didn't the classic 1-man scout have a person with Pilot-1, Nav-1, Eng-1 as the basic requirement to fly it?

 

[Vormaerin]

Didn't the classic 1-man scout have a person with Pilot-1, Nav-1, Eng-1 as the basic requirement to fly it?

You mean in CT? No. You wanted that because things might go wrong. But a 100 dton vessel only required a pilot in that ruleset. You didn't need an engineer unless you were bigger than 100dtons and you didn't need a Navigator unless you were over 200 dtons.

THe maintenance that mattered for ship breakdowns happened at starports and the computer had a program for generating jump plots and engaging the jump drive. And you couldn't misjump unless you deliberately took needless risks like using unrefined fuel or trying to enter jumpspace inside a gravity well.

Obviously, if you took damage from something or you wanted to figure out something weird, you'd want to have those skills. But, no, it was a one man crew of Pilot 1. Which was basically guaranteed to all scouts, IIRC.

The longer Traveller existed, the more they moved away from automation to "A PC has to do it". I can't remember if MegaTraveller increased the crew or not, but it was definitely post CT.

 

[WHULorigan]

Didn't the classic 1-man scout have a person with Pilot-1, Nav-1, Eng-1 as the basic requirement to fly it?

Also, keep in mind that under CT, "0-Level Skills" were awarded at the referee's discretion, and were considered "basic familiarization, but with no real experience thru use". So you could in theory take the familiarization course or refresher course (with referee permission), or the referee could arbitrarily declare that a Scout had 0-Level familiarization with such things from his background (either all scouts, all scouts from a particular background, or just you), and you would have Nav-0, Eng-0, or Whatever-0 as the referee saw fit - and that was RAW.

(And 0-level skills could be awarded as background on the fly as the referee deemed appropriate if he thought it reasonable, on an ongoing basis during the campaign).

 

[rinku]

It should be emphasised that in CT and pretty much in all editions, there's a difference between the crew position and the skills required to do stuff.

All ships require a Pilot. Because someone has to be making decisions about where to go, even if an autopilot does the actual flying under supervision. An authority MIGHT require that person to have at least Pilot-0 to operate in their jurisdiction; a commercial space line would certainly want Pilot-1 or better for anyone to get that job. But some random guy who is the last surviving crewmember of a mutiny that has a ship full of scared passengers, some needing medical attention...? They're also the Pilot, even if their piloting skill rolls are at -3. (They're also the Astrogator, Engineer, Purser and Gunner, but that's another matter)

Mostly, the crew requirements reflect the legal requirement or practical recommendation side of things. At the adventuring party end of things, things can be looser.

 

[WHULorigan]

You mean in CT? No. You wanted that because things might go wrong. But a 100 dton vessel only required a pilot in that ruleset. You didn't need an engineer unless you were bigger than 100dtons and you didn't need a Navigator unless you were over 200 dtons.
. . .

The longer Traveller existed, the more they moved away from automation to "A PC has to do it". I can't remember if MegaTraveller increased the crew or not, but it was definitely post CT.

And that is something that I miss with the rulesets going forward.

It is one thing to have the game-design philosophy of "people doing things" rather than "my simple well-worded task-request to the AI interface to automate the search/task/hand-off to the "bot" to get the job done while I go watch a Tri-D Vid". But that doesn't mean that skill-bloat should be allowed to lead to massive crew requirements just to fill out positions to cover the possible contingencies.

Engineer used to mean ALL engineering skill-subsets in one skill at one standard level. Navigator covered navigation and the equipment to get bearings, and therefore sensors (effectively - which would likely include the rest of the electronics and emissions equipment like communications as well), etc. Now everyone gets specialized in everything (and it started going down this road back in CT 3rd party supplements and some later LBB publications - as Advanced CharGen gave skills per year rather than per term, skill cascades mitigated overly-high skill levels and also produced granularity in the character background). Now you virtually need to have a full engineering crew (for example) for even the smallest vessels just to ensure coverage of competency in all relevant skillsets that might be needed.

Now I do like skill-cascades - but I think if you use them you need to do a combination of the MgT "Default 0-Level" in other skills in the cascade on the one hand, and the MT concept of certain cascade sub-skills "defaulting to a lesser 'non-zero' level" based off of the primary skill on a case-by-case basis.

Either you get few skills from CharGen like in CT Basic CharGen (but they are broad, and 0-Level skills are unspecified and potentially abundant and do not define what you can't do - on the contrary your leveled skills simply define what you are good at), or you get many skills at lower levels and cascades that default from them at lower levels that flesh out what the character can do in practice.

 

[Vormaerin]

Yeah, I don't treat Engineer as a cascade skill. I can imagine that if I was running a naval ratings campaign, I might care who was a Jump Engineer and who was a Drive Polisher. But that level of specificity just screws the one guy on your team that wants to play Scotty or whoever the latest hotness is in sci fi engineers.

Personally, I also think Sensor Op is a better job class than Navigator. Because the sensor op has stuff to do in space combat and plenty of other situations. Whereas the game has always struggled to make Astrogation do something besides "Save or die".