Astrogation question

[rust]

All it does is effectively remove an avenue of player participation.

When I think of all the astrogator characters I have seen over the years,
for each of them astrogation was one of his least often used and least use-
ful skills, and if the astrogation roll would have been made with, for exam-
ple, the generally far more useful computer skill, this would have changed
neither the character's concept nor the player's participation in any way.

 

[Blix]

yup.* And where's the fun in that ? All it does is effectively remove an avenue of player participation. Not a huge one, granted, but a dramatic one.

I think that is very much a matter of opinion.

In my games, a ship will successfully travel between A and B unless I (as a GM) decide that there is a reason for it not to, in which case I will have an adventure planned for that occasion. I do not leave it up to random die rolls to decide whether a ship misjumps, or is delayed, or explodes and kills everyone. My players prefer it that way too, in part because it gives them (rather than the dice) more control over their characters' fate.

It's rather like there being a chance that a car that the PCs are in will crash on the way to somewhere; unless the crash is important to the plot, it's simply not going to happen in my games. Some people may prefer to run adventures on the fly and leave it all to chance and roll with whatever the dice say, but I do not.

YMMV.

 

[captainjack23]

All it does is effectively remove an avenue of player participation.

When I think of all the astrogator characters I have seen over the years,
for each of them astrogation was one of his least often used and least use-
ful skills, and if the astrogation roll would have been made with, for exam-
ple, the generally far more useful computer skill, this would have changed
neither the character's concept nor the player's participation in any way.

Okay, point. I'm guilty of letting the pilot do the astrogation when needed; but I do run a spaceflight heavy camaign, and the astrogator does do stuff - partly because I let astrogation stand in for sensor and Navigation stuff, especially in combat. And I designed the scout pacs to allow users to substitute comp skill for whatever. Still, much the same can be said for most non combat skills if one goes in that direction.

Still, since we are discussing the framework of MGT or CT, there are astrogators; so that' why I make an effort to have them. It won't kill the game either way - but, from my pointy of view, anything that deals with data analysis needs a person in the loop. But, as I noted, that's my hammer -so this problem becomes a nail....

 

[captainjack23]

yup.* And where's the fun in that ? All it does is effectively remove an avenue of player participation. Not a huge one, granted, but a dramatic one.

I think that is very much a matter of opinion.

Unlike all the other discussion, right.

c'mon, play nice. :wink:


Your point that having an astrogator player is a trival issue is noted in my original comment: extra points if you can find it !*

My main point is that if you want to treat computers like magic black boxes to solve things, that's fine, but it pretty well has the potential to moot most skills; plus, there's adequate examples in real life of complex situations where a person requires a computer to perform their job, but that a computer cannot solve on its own. I guess it seems more obvious to me because I'm in the middle of it.....and possibly too obvious.

And, for the record, the whole sandbox or planning continuum you drop in isn't black and white; having an extra roll point is no more totally random than your plans railroading your players right ? An extra plot point is an extra plot point, and often very useful when players 9of their own free will) cause tings to go pear-shaped.



*Hint: "Not a huge one" implies what ?

 

[rinku]

As a point... combining astrogation and pilot can potentially blow up in the face of a small crew. Doing the plot may only need to be done once per jump, but it appears to be a full-time job normally done over a few hours (to get the time bonus). A pilot would not be expected to fly the ship actively while doing this, so any emergency (even a routine one like avoiding debris) might disrupt the plotting process if they have to switch over to pilot mode.

A thought for plot purposes, anyway.

 

[Blix]

Unlike all the other discussion, right.

I never implied that other viewpoints were not valid. You were the one implying that there was objectively no "fun" in denying players an extra opportunity to roll the dice.

And, for the record, the whole sandbox or planning continuum you drop in isn't black and white;

Again, I never implied that it was.

 

[DFW]

That's relegating the human to a mere button-pusher, an emergency backup computer, and the philosophy of letting the machine take the strain is really quite nauseating to me.

Don't peek int the cockpit the next time you fly across an ocean. The airlines
stopped using human navigators ~25 years ago. The computer does it ALL now. It is to the point where the computers are programmed to set set off an alarm every once in a while on long flights as the pilots fall asleep because there is nothing they have to do.

 

[BP]

... A pilot would not be expected to fly the ship actively while doing this, so any emergency (even a routine one like avoiding debris) might disrupt the plotting process if they have to switch over to pilot mode.

A thought for plot purposes, anyway.

Most definitely!

Of course, that is what the auto-pilot is for! (Or the co-pilot!)

- Can't as reliably make that 'jump to light speed' when trying to out-run that Imperial destroyer, er, uhmmm... you know what I mean!

In RL, the position of dedicated Navigator is largely non-existent even today - and, I don't believe, has never existed in space flight. Not to say it wouldn't be relevant to 'jump' tech - though that seems even less likely to be the case, actually. From a RP standpoint, there is often little enough for a pilot to do, much less an astrogator. The pilot could have the separate skill (or computer), but it just seems to add to skill bloat for me and be rather redundant to the pilot skill...

 

[rinku]

The importance of human pilots is for emergency situations, in particular take off and landing. Long distance navigation at altitude is something you can relax and let the autopilot take care of, though.

 

[captainjack23]

Unlike all the other discussion, right.

I never implied that other viewpoints were not valid. You were the one implying that there was objectively no "fun" in denying players an extra opportunity to roll the dice.

And, for the record, the whole sandbox or planning continuum you drop in isn't black and white;

Again, I never implied that it was.

My goodness, it looks like someone had to take an extra term in the imperial crankypants brigade.....which makes it all the less appealing to get into an even more subjective discussion of intent, implication and metadiscussion. So, I'll pass. Any thoughts on the topic ? I'll chat about that some more if you want.

 

[captainjack23]

As a point... combining astrogation and pilot can potentially blow up in the face of a small crew. Doing the plot may only need to be done once per jump, but it appears to be a full-time job normally done over a few hours (to get the time bonus). A pilot would not be expected to fly the ship actively while doing this, so any emergency (even a routine one like avoiding debris) might disrupt the plotting process if they have to switch over to pilot mode.

A thought for plot purposes, anyway.

Oh yes, yes indeedy-doo. The fact that I let them get away with it didn't mean that they weren't at risk......
There's a minus for simultanious tasks, right ? And there's nothing that says you have to mention it to the players......until they see the results :twisted:

 

[rinku]

Just had a thought; part of the navigator's job is going to be to check (and recheck) the data coming in about the system. By definition, any information they have about the system they are jumping into is at least 2 weeks old, quite possibly much older. It will have to be validated; even if the computer is doing the grunt work, someone who knows what they're doing should be there to draw conclusions.

Who analyses collision threats?

Who detects and corrects irregularities in complex orbital peturbations?

Who works out that the ship is off course because that drunken fool of an engineer screwed up the jump and exactly where the heck are we?

It seems to me that the Navigator has a big role *after* the jump...

 

[DFW]

By definition, any information they have about the system they are jumping into is at least 2 weeks old, quite possibly much older. It will have to be validated; even if the computer is doing the grunt work, someone who knows what they're doing should be there to draw conclusions.

What's going to change in 2 weeks? Unless someone blew up a planet, nothing. As far as coming out of jump, unless you are jumping into a system with no starport the computer will recieve the beacon data and compute exact location. Radar/Lidar will show the pilot any nearby debris.

 

[Cleon the Mad]

As a point... combining astrogation and pilot can potentially blow up in the face of a small crew. Doing the plot may only need to be done once per jump, but it appears to be a full-time job normally done over a few hours (to get the time bonus). A pilot would not be expected to fly the ship actively while doing this, so any emergency (even a routine one like avoiding debris) might disrupt the plotting process if they have to switch over to pilot mode.

A thought for plot purposes, anyway.

True, but that makes it even more interesting that a lot of ships at 400 dtons and under often list "Pilot/Navigator (or Pilot/Astrogator) as one single position. Look at a lone Scout in a Type S or X-Boat if nothing else. THAT poor sap is his own pilot, navigator AND jump drive engineer when it comes to doing a jump.

 

[Cleon the Mad]

By definition, any information they have about the system they are jumping into is at least 2 weeks old, quite possibly much older. It will have to be validated; even if the computer is doing the grunt work, someone who knows what they're doing should be there to draw conclusions.

What's going to change in 2 weeks? Unless someone blew up a planet, nothing. As far as coming out of jump, unless you are jumping into a system with no starport the computer will recieve the beacon data and compute exact location. Radar/Lidar will show the pilot any nearby debris.

Well, isn't the system the ship is leaving, along with the system the ship is wanting to jump to moving? Let alone any system(s) that might be in the way if a ship is jumping past them? Okay, 2 weeks time might not be a lot to compensate for...but maybe (or maybe not) it's enough that an actual astrogator is wanted/needed so that they can make sure the computer didn't do some absurd mistake in figuring out where anything might be over the next week or two. It isn't like flying from San Francisco to Miami or some such, where the locations involved are firmly on the ground.

Or am I not comprehending your statement somehow, to be fair I am running on somewhat of a lack of sleep, I did have insomnia the night before and I have yet to try to sleep tonight.

 

[DFW]

True, but that makes it even more interesting that a lot of ships at 400 dtons and under often list "Pilot/Navigator (or Pilot/Astrogator) as one single position. Look at a lone Scout in a Type S or X-Boat if nothing else. THAT poor sap is his own pilot, navigator AND jump drive engineer when it comes to doing a jump.

The last two ships I designed had an Astrogator expert system. In game I'm going to shift the PCs to Sensor/Comm duties as this is what the Astrogator usually ended up doing anyway. This frees up a skill slot for better use.

 

[rinku]

By definition, any information they have about the system they are jumping into is at least 2 weeks old, quite possibly much older. It will have to be validated; even if the computer is doing the grunt work, someone who knows what they're doing should be there to draw conclusions.

What's going to change in 2 weeks? Unless someone blew up a planet, nothing. As far as coming out of jump, unless you are jumping into a system with no starport the computer will recieve the beacon data and compute exact location. Radar/Lidar will show the pilot any nearby debris.

Inaccurate jump, starport happens to be on the other side of the star. Starport D with minimal traffic. Where are you? More importantly, who has the experience and skill to work this out? Yes, the pilot... if they have Astrogation skill. Otherwise the navigator.

No, I don't expect that important orbital data will have changed for most systems in a 2 week cycle most of the time. But you aren't always jumping in to most systems. Sometimes it's a hostile one, or one that's astrographically remote. My main concern would be relativistic effects - the longer between updates the more likely that there's going to be drift between the local reference frame and the target one.

I agree that most of the time the navigator will not have much to do. But that applies to many ship positions. Gunners aren't called on most trips. Pilots can use the autopilot most of the time. Doctors will hopefully have an idle voyage. But now and again the expertise is going to be required.

 

[rinku]

As a point... combining astrogation and pilot can potentially blow up in the face of a small crew. Doing the plot may only need to be done once per jump, but it appears to be a full-time job normally done over a few hours (to get the time bonus). A pilot would not be expected to fly the ship actively while doing this, so any emergency (even a routine one like avoiding debris) might disrupt the plotting process if they have to switch over to pilot mode.

A thought for plot purposes, anyway.

True, but that makes it even more interesting that a lot of ships at 400 dtons and under often list "Pilot/Navigator (or Pilot/Astrogator) as one single position. Look at a lone Scout in a Type S or X-Boat if nothing else. THAT poor sap is his own pilot, navigator AND jump drive engineer when it comes to doing a jump.

Heh. At least the X-Boat dude doesn't have to worry about being a pilot...

 

[DFW]

Inaccurate jump, starport happens to be on the other side of the star. Starport D with minimal traffic. Where are you? More importantly, who has the experience and skill to work this out? Yes, the pilot... if they have Astrogation skill. Otherwise the navigator.

No, I don't expect that important orbital data will have changed for most systems in a 2 week cycle most of the time. But you aren't always jumping in to most systems. Sometimes it's a hostile one, or one that's astrographically remote. My main concern would be relativistic effects - the longer between updates the more likely that there's going to be drift between the local reference frame and the target one.

In a system with a starport the beacon isn't singular. It is "beacons" so it doesn't matter where in the system you jump. In any system that has been charted the ship systems can get an auto fix (even todays tech) on the planets and give a location in system. Yes, if you are scouting uncharted systems you want an astrogator. Also, there no "relativistic effects". That only applies to your own ship if you are pushing it through real space and velocities approaching c. So, I don't know why you mention it here.

 

[alex_greene]

That's relegating the human to a mere button-pusher, an emergency backup computer, and the philosophy of letting the machine take the strain is really quite nauseating to me.

Don't peek int the cockpit the next time you fly across an ocean. The airlines
stopped using human navigators ~25 years ago. The computer does it ALL now. It is to the point where the computers are programmed to set set off an alarm every once in a while on long flights as the pilots fall asleep because there is nothing they have to do.

Why do you think I don't fly anywhere? When people rely on machines to do all the thinking for them, what do we need people for?
Oh, I know. To blame when the navcom confuses Orleans with New Orleans, or Bayreuth with Beirut.