Astrogation needs help

A rule that has no effect on anything is a waste of space in a book where space has a cost. If you spend time explaining a limit that does not, in fact, limit anything, then it's just useless. Which is the case for the interstellar application of the rule.

For the in system application of the rule, it has the same problem with any other in system travel. There is no way for the referee or the player to actually know where two bodies are in relation to each other at the any given time that is consistent. Can I jump from Earthport to Jupiter at the moment or is the Sun's jumpshadow in the way? NO IDEA. So, again the rule becomes unplayable.

Real space has this problem, but it at least has a "take the average and then use a randomizer to determine where it falls at the moment" workaround. Jump is a yes/no question, however.

Edit: You asked how it is undesirable. I ask: how is it helpful or desirable? In what way does it add something interesting to the play of the game?
Many examples have been given for both intersteller and insystem applications for astrogator. You might not like them, but they exist, and I think most people will find them compelling.

As with Gun Combat, you need to know where the target is to decide if the shooter can even shoot at the target. Does this make it impossible to use the skill? Is this a problem for the skill's very existence? In my view, it is not. The referee can decide where the target is, or figure out based on the target's last known position and movement where it is, and either using a map and checking sight lines. If theater of the mind is used, consistency might be a problem, but referees in my experience are mostly up to the challenge.

Same with jumping. I recommend just making a roll for line of sight on the first occasion, and if the issue arises again in the same system, make sure you give an answer which makes sense given the movement of the planets in-between times. If you really want to dive in, use Universe Sandbox, but for most referees, most of the time a guestimate will do the trick. Precise locations for planets can be given, if you want to go to the trouble, but 99% of the time it is just as good to wing it. This doesn't mean it is not important: if the referee rolls that you will need to fly out to get a line of sight on your target star outside jump shadow, it might be the opportunity the pirates need to jump you. It just means that an approximate answer, given on the fly, will work just as well - as with a theater of the mind gunshot, the effect is still still there. You don't need to calculate the orbital dynamics to know that planets will circle around their star quickly if they are in close, and slowly if they are out far. (and this problem is not the fault of Astrogation skill, or of jump shadows: you still have this issue if you want to fly your spaceship from one planet to another. This is a space opera type game: flying spaceships around is baked-in, and the issue of knowing where planets are arises, jump shadow or no)

Why even bother with any of this? Space travel and jump space need rules so that we know how they work in game terms, and electroplating from the basic principles is needed to apply them to specific situations. Players will try to figure out solutions to the problems you present them, and to do that they need understand how their environment works. These things add to game play because they create potential problems and strategies to solve them, and shape a terrain on which spacecraft move. Things could be done differently, such as not having jump shadows, but then that creates a whole different terrain and different set of problems and solutions, which are not developed at all in the canon.
 
IMHO, the game worked fine for decades with jump shadows only affecting arrival and departure, not transit. Same thing with your thrusters not turning off around Saturn. These don't strike me as innovations that make the game better. Maybe if they supported it with robust systems, it might be different.

I agree that players will attempt to solve problems you present to them. But they have to have the tools to solve it (or, better yet, anticipate it) themselves or it doesn't matter. You seem to think that groups that are not primarily astrophysics hobbyists will just 'wing it' around how to use Astrogation and space travel issues in an interesting way. I suspect that, absent any guidance in the rules, they'll just ignore it.
 
And just to be clear, my original comment on jump masking was in reference to the previous conversation about jump transit. I am not in any way, shape, or form advocating for eliminating jump shadows for entry or exit of jumpspace. I'm just saying that the 'electroplating' of those rules into something that lets real world objects knock ships out of jumpspace was not a good addition to the game.

Which I am not even sure is explicitly stated anywhere in Mongoose Traveller, actually.
 
IMHO, the game worked fine for decades with jump shadows only affecting arrival and departure, not transit. Same thing with your thrusters not turning off around Saturn. These don't strike me as innovations that make the game better. Maybe if they supported it with robust systems, it might be different.

I agree that players will attempt to solve problems you present to them. But they have to have the tools to solve it (or, better yet, anticipate it) themselves or it doesn't matter. You seem to think that groups that are not primarily astrophysics hobbyists will just 'wing it' around how to use Astrogation and space travel issues in an interesting way. I suspect that, absent any guidance in the rules, they'll just ignore it.
I also struggle with the new limits on maneuver drives
 
So that is actually what he meant. I wasn't sure, because I still haven't figured out what that has to do with the maneuver drive falling off an efficiency cliff at 1000D. :D
 
So that is actually what he meant. I wasn't sure, because I still haven't figured out what that has to do with the maneuver drive falling off an efficiency cliff at 1000D. :D
I am interpreting it as encouragement that IMTU, we can adjust the rules to be how I want.

I did, in a way. I created rules for lightcraft and light transit arrays that propel smallcraft using something like Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR) to achieve high-g thrust in deep space (without that “speed of smell” deep space drive).
 
Depends on how fundamental this technological limitation is in the Third Imperium.

And if we can mitigate it's effects, whether by customization or a new understanding of gravity that allows us to bypass the limitations.
 
I also struggle with the new limits on maneuver drives
I just ignore these. Although I understand the problem they are trying to solve, the idea that you can't use a maneuver drive effectively in interstellar space just sucks so bad that I can't go along with the solution. It also effectively converts misjumps into interstellar space from a possibly solvable problem into an automatic TPK.
 
You seem to think that groups that are not primarily astrophysics hobbyists will just 'wing it' around how to use Astrogation and space travel issues in an interesting way. I suspect that, absent any guidance in the rules, they'll just ignore it.
Yes, they will and do. Which is fine; it is natural that referees will be able to give more texture to aspects of life, the universe and everything, that they know about and gloss over those they don't. I also suspect that the Traveller player base has more than its share of hard sci fi fans and astrophysics hobbyists, and for us space travel is, per se, interesting and exciting.
 
I think a lot of players find space travel interesting and exciting, but aren't astrophysics hobbyists and would gladly use more of it if they had guidance from the rules.

The rules say that a plotting a gravity slingshot around a gas giant is a 10+ Astrogation test. What it forgets to say is what actually happens as a result. Is plotting the course doing it? Or is this just a task chain bonus for the pilot actually doing the maneuver? If they do succeed, how much does this gravity slingshot help? Ideally in a gameplay focused format, not just the actual math.

And the other interesting realspace navigation applications people have talked about in this thread are not even mentioned in the rules. I think it is worth changing that.
 
I think a lot of players find space travel interesting and exciting, but aren't astrophysics hobbyists and would gladly use more of it if they had guidance from the rules.
There is a lot of development on this topic at Freelance Traveller, https://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/rules/navigation/index.html, which absolutely could also use more interpretation into actual rules, especially in regards to interaction with other skills. Of course, you can always use actual math, but if you know enough about it to do that, you also have the intuitive grasp to give plausible answers without using the math.
 
yeah, except number 6, where I don't think it should apply at all. Won't be long before AI has replaced referees. And players not long after.
Remember in interplanentary trade, an astrogator knows if your potential next trading stop is on the other side of the solar system from your departure point. It matters.
 
I think a lot of players find space travel interesting and exciting, but aren't astrophysics hobbyists and would gladly use more of it if they had guidance from the rules.

The rules say that a plotting a gravity slingshot around a gas giant is a 10+ Astrogation test. What it forgets to say is what actually happens as a result. Is plotting the course doing it? Or is this just a task chain bonus for the pilot actually doing the maneuver? If they do succeed, how much does this gravity slingshot help? Ideally in a gameplay focused format, not just the actual math.

And the other interesting realspace navigation applications people have talked about in this thread are not even mentioned in the rules. I think it is worth changing that.
That seems rather high for a astrogation plot effort when people here on earth did it with slide rules and chalk. Unless you really blow it, using a planet for a sling-shot should be a basic astrogation and piloting roll. The challenge is trying to figure out how your 1turns burn at 1G and then a slingshot acceleration changes into X number of 1G burns to slow down to zero-zero relative to your destination. Unless you want to do a braking sling-shot at the destination.

Populated systems might not allow such things due to safety factors for regular shipping traffic if you are in traffic heavy areas. Out in the dark or away from everyone you are clear of cop sensors, so go with the flow!
 
Stars and planets are constantly accelerating, they follow "circular" paths - actually much more complicated. If you are "at rest" relative to the motion of the system you are in then you have to be orbiting at the same rate, which means you are not at rest. The whole point of relativity really...

Which is inherently silly since nothing is in a "straight line", made more complicated by everything moving while you are in jump space.

Jump masking etc was a GURPS invention - it should never have been retconned into the setting.

There are a lot more Jumpspace dimensions than just five...
I forgot who upthread mentioned relative stop, but that's situational specific. All bodies in space are moving, including the galaxy we are in. So if you are doing that, are you coming to a relative stop to the galactic center of the galaxy? For the star system you are in? For the star system you are going to be going to? For simplicity sake I always assume relative stop is local to the system/body you are near (which most likely wont' match the star at the center of the system). The entire argument is relative.

I think a jump line can easily be straight so that it doesn't impact the gravitational wells large objects are going to have. That means plotting your course through a potential moving billiard ball model - but travel is quite fast as measured in N-space in order to cross a parsec in a week's time. Depending on where you are going you may have to travel above or below the plane of the ecliptic to get your straight line (or even days at full burn to clear a large gas giant's jump shadow in the outer system. It all depends on how complex you want to make the game, and if you do make it complex then that should be used a possible plot point to justify the pain.

Deducing locations based on the jump flash/entry into jump space has always been a bit murky in my mind. If you are going to have an entry flash or energy given off, then you definitely need to have something similar on the exit. Perhaps the location and size of the jump entry energy can deduce distance to be travelled, and the entry flash the same way. Or just make it like some other sci-fi, when you jump you are untrackable and all you can do is guess where along the line the ship may re-enter N-space.

One has to wonder if jump space is perhaps more akin to fold-space, where you are folding reality upon itself to cheat the physics of things. That's holding up the proverbial "paper" of space as a 2D object and folding it into pieces so you travel not in straight line but through the folds to emerge at your destination. In any case without a physics explanation to the core method. we are again left to speculate on the nuts and bolts of things. I recall when the first LBB came out we were so entranced with simply surviving character generation that we really didn't think about a lot of other stuff related to the mechanics of the game. But, at the same time, I had my hot-off-the-pressed AD&D DM's guide that was proverbially filled with all kinds of information on how to design your own things to fit within the premise of AD&D. It took me a while before I started asking some of the same background questions and comparing/contrasting the two systems. Till GURPS came around I always thought AD&D had a far better leg to stand on for completeness of the gaming universe than Traveller.
 
Back
Top