Jump travel without training

[Vormaerin]

You could take all the time in the world to answer your math test but if you don't know how to solve it, all the time in the world won't help you.
Taking more time should never be used to compensate for lack of skill IMHO, it should only be used to compensate for having to do something faster than normal. It may be used to compensate for improper tools in some circumstances as well.

Oh, taking extra time isn't a great rule. I'm not overly fond of it myself. In most situations where the player has all the time they need, then it probably isn't interesting to roll in the first place.

But it is the rule, so the OP's correct by that standard.

Besides, there's no evidence that the astrogator is actually doing math. They are just waiving their sentience over the jump control program's output

(and, yes, I'm joking. But Traveller has generally required the computer to do the actual work, even once they started requiring the Astrogator to actually make a roll. They are still approving the computer's output, AFAICT.)

 

[Condottiere]

It takes time to search for the Youtube tutorial, watch it, and do a couple of dry runs.

But I'd say it depends on whether you understand the principles behind operating the equipment.

Familiarity with weapon systems would tell you how the turret likely functions.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Apple Vision pro model 3015...

 

[JustEastOfTheEdge]

Of course it is ridiculous that a person would be plotting the jump route—it is an ideal task for computers. If a person can calculate it, a computer can too. The software option available in game to automate it is very costly, and makes me wonder how a person is managing to figure out something that this massive software cannot.. It is simply one of those things in Traveller that has not aged well. You can cover it with mumbo jumbo about it using the force, or say its an alternative view of the future, but we all already know that is one task no ape is going to do. I don't even waste time with it, and the only time Astrogation would be useful is when there is a computer failure, or you are somewhere very unknown...

 

[Vormaerin]

I assume that Astrogation works like modern astronomy. Computers process the data and do most of the work. The scientists are determining relevance and evaluating anomalous results. And deciding what data the computer should be looking for.

It is my opinion that the reason plotting a Jump is an Easy task is because the computer does everything correctly almost all the time. That's actually the description of the Jump Control Program (And the Generate program that preceded it in earlier editions). Maybe it provides a range of solutions and the astrogator picks one. Or maybe it's just the difference between someone who can read the results of a spreadsheet and someone who can create spreadsheets to get the specific results they want.

I don't remember when exactly in the rules evolution Astrogators suddenly became indispensable. The Type S originally had a crew of 1 (pilot). Now it has a crew of 3 because astrogators and engineers suddenly have to involved in triggering the jump control program properly. Sure, you can have one guy doing all three jobs, but there's a penalty for that now.

 

[Condottiere]

Fifth dimensional astronomy, probably.

 

[aysecan2]

You raise a good point - the Traveller jump travel rules do seem to allow untrained characters to make jumps by taking extra time, with only a small risk of misjumps.

While realistic in some ways, this does undermine the value of investing in Astrogation and Engineer skills for well-trained navigation and drive operation. Especially since most misjumps just add a few days rather than stranding the ship.

Some options if you want to encourage skill investment:

• Increase scope of misjump effects - stranding, system damage, crew injuries
• Impose skill checks for certain emergency repairs during misjumps
• Require a minimum skill level to attempt unsupervised jumps
• Introduce maintenance/repair checks that become harder with low Engineer skill
• Limit how much extra time offsets skill penalties

The core system does work as designed for simplicity's sake. But adding risks and challenges for unskilled travel could better reward working to improve Astrogation and Engineer. Adds incentives for PCs to train and specialize. Interested to hear others' takes!

 

[Vormaerin]

The first question I'd have is whether there is value pushing specialization like that given the fairly tight constraints on skill points in Traveller. Should your PC need multiple levels of Engineering and Mechanics to be competent at their job on the crew? Is "once every two or three weeks, you have to make a die roll" a worthwhile investment to encourage a PC to have the Astrogation skill?

Someone at some point decided that this was the case, but it was not a feature of the original rules. As I discussed above, a Type S scout/courier didn't need an engineer or astrogator. Now it is a 3 man ship. Is that good for gameplay? I'm inclined to think not. Neither of these skills are normally central to the adventuring. While they can be important in specific situations, most of the time they are just "can we drive to the next adventure?" type tests.

From a setting perspective, this comes down to how dangerous do you want interstellar travel to be. Classic Traveller had misjumps be pretty catastrophic, but only happen as a result of deliberate negligence. Now you need two trained experts and you can theoretically misjump without doing anything wrong (though it is pretty unlikely given how easy the test is). But the misjumps are not as bad.

In my campaign, Astrogation is optional on the small ships that PCs operate and Engineering doesn't have specializations. If my PC wants to be Scotty or Naomi, then they should be able to do that with Engineering and Mechanics. They shouldn't need 5 skills (4 Engineering specs + Mechanics) or have to worry that this time it will be the skill they didn't pick. If Engineering is actually the relevant skill an adventure situation, I don't want the Master Engineer to go "ugh, I have Jump 3, but this is Life Support so I'm only rank 0 noob level."

Larger ships have Astrogators because the ship needs more watch standing officers on the bridge crew, but the computer is doing the actual work. Like on Star Trek, where (prior to Chekov), the navigator was always the one-shot Ensign screw up of the week on the bridge crew.

 

[Saladman]

.... If Engineering is actually the relevant skill an adventure situation, I don't want the Master Engineer to go "ugh, I have Jump 3, but this is Life Support so I'm only rank 0 noob level."

You're describing what's probably the majority playstyle and concern on this issue, but it's by no means obvious or automatic out of the rules set. Target number 8, don't roll unless you're being opposed or working under adverse conditions [which when I first got 1e I originally took to mean don't assign a negative DM for the first adverse condition, although some book examples run counter to that], then think of a task chain from another character for a bonus [involves both other characters and other players instead of everybody sitting back and watching one guy roll during "his scene"], then up the time increment if still necessary, then remember that if characters were randomly rolled and skill packages assigned it's more likely "The Engineer" has J-Drive 2 and maybe Mechanic and someone else has Life Support 1 than that The Engineer has J-Drive 3 or 4...

The whole thing holds together just fine... right up until you start stripping out the interlocking parts. And by "you" I mean not just the GM, but players can exercise veto power over the whole thing if they're determined that getting their character concept means the engineer has skill 4+, and the face guy has no mechanic or engineer skill at all because blegh. As the highest skill in the PC group creeps higher the GM starts assigning more negative DMs, first to that highest skill so they don't auto-succeed against TN 8, then to all other skills so it doesn't stand out, and pretty quickly you're playing a different game than you would be if players hadn't needed higher numbers written on their sheet to feel they'd gotten the character they wanted.

 

[Vormaerin]

I feel like that entire argument is a strawman, though I doubt you intended it that way. None of that resonates with me or is any sort of experience that I've had. I have six characters in my current game (2 Navy, 1 Marine, 1 Diplomat, 1 Agent, 1 Psi Warrior). I have a Steward 3, Laser Weapons 3, and an Unarmed Combat 4 (really, really wanted some stat boosts that the dice never granted..). Crazy overpowered skills aren't an issue. And, honestly, they haven't been at any point in the 40 years I've been playing this game. One of the Navy people has Engineering, but the crew took the criminal package because they wanna firefly around. So there's no extra Engineering that way. I just don't see any advantage to telling the Engineer they have to split their 2 pts of Engineer skill amongst 4 subskills. What is anyone gaining by that differentiation?

Task Chains are fine when only the one character is doing anything and everyone else is standing around. In ship to ship combat, everyone's probably doing something that is not hanging around to task chain on someone else. But even if that's not the case, a task chain set up action where you have +2 on that roll is 72% of helping. If it succeeds, your engineer has a 50/50 of fixing the life support with their +0 skill and the +1 for a basic success on the help, because their engineering skill is Jump Drives or Power Plant (the help could be +2 or -1 instead). If someone has 1 or 2 points of Engineering, it means 3/4 of the opportunities to use Engineering are going to be not their area of expertise. How does that make the game better?

And if you do look at ship combat, the Engineer crew actions are Overload the Drive, which is a 10+ Maneuver test. Overload the Power Plant, also 10+ but for Power Plant. Emergency Jump (which varies depending on how fast and how bad the situation). So I don't feel like the Engineer can just hyperfocus and rely on help for everything else. And I don't feel like the PC being Engineer 3 is gonna break the game, because lots of engineering tasks are rated Hard or worse. And so what if their moment of glory only needs a 4+ because they are really good and have help?

 

[Condottiere]

Engineering/life support is an oddity.

How complex can the machinery be, or the principles behind it, or of said machinery?

 

[aysecan2]

You raise an interesting point about the complexity of life support systems and machinery. As an engineer, I'm often fascinated by the intricacy and sophistication of systems that keep people alive in extreme environments like space stations, submarines, or underground shelters.

On one hand, it's remarkable how far technology has come to allow humans to survive in places not naturally habitable. The ISS, for example, relies on incredibly complex environmental control systems to maintain breathable air, drinkable water, comfortable temperatures and air pressure. Every component must work together flawlessly. It's an engineering marvel.

On the other hand, the fundamentals of life support ultimately boil down to meeting basic human needs - air, water, food, shelter. While the machinery to provide these things in space may be complex, the principles behind it are straightforward. At its core, it's not too different from building any off-the-grid shelter. The complexity stems more from the unique constraints of the environment rather than the goals themselves.

So I think you make a great point - life support systems can be as complex or simple as they need to be. It depends on the environment and parameters. But no matter how advanced the technology, the basic human needs remain the same. The complexity is often more situational than fundamental. Let me know if you have any other thoughts on this interesting topic!

 

[Condottiere]

Maintenance of life support equipment seems more something for the mechanics to deal with.

Though I'm more than curious to find out if you need an engineer for every thirty five tonnes of life support equipment, and how that's calculated and priced, as well as actual running costs.

 

[Ol'Weedy]

I feel like that entire argument is a strawman, though I doubt you intended it that way. None of that resonates with me or is any sort of experience that I've had. I have six characters in my current game (2 Navy, 1 Marine, 1 Diplomat, 1 Agent, 1 Psi Warrior). I have a Steward 3, Laser Weapons 3, and an Unarmed Combat 4 (really, really wanted some stat boosts that the dice never granted..). Crazy overpowered skills aren't an issue. And, honestly, they haven't been at any point in the 40 years I've been playing this game. One of the Navy people has Engineering, but the crew took the criminal package because they wanna firefly around. So there's no extra Engineering that way. I just don't see any advantage to telling the Engineer they have to split their 2 pts of Engineer skill amongst 4 subskills. What is anyone gaining by that differentiation?

Task Chains are fine when only the one character is doing anything and everyone else is standing around. In ship to ship combat, everyone's probably doing something that is not hanging around to task chain on someone else. But even if that's not the case, a task chain set up action where you have +2 on that roll is 72% of helping. If it succeeds, your engineer has a 50/50 of fixing the life support with their +0 skill and the +1 for a basic success on the help, because their engineering skill is Jump Drives or Power Plant (the help could be +2 or -1 instead). If someone has 1 or 2 points of Engineering, it means 3/4 of the opportunities to use Engineering are going to be not their area of expertise. How does that make the game better?

And if you do look at ship combat, the Engineer crew actions are Overload the Drive, which is a 10+ Maneuver test. Overload the Power Plant, also 10+ but for Power Plant. Emergency Jump (which varies depending on how fast and how bad the situation). So I don't feel like the Engineer can just hyperfocus and rely on help for everything else. And I don't feel like the PC being Engineer 3 is gonna break the game, because lots of engineering tasks are rated Hard or worse. And so what if their moment of glory only needs a 4+ because they are really good and have help?

What you mention about splitting skill points, is precisely why allow level 0 skills stack during character creation for specialty skills like engineering. I.E. If they take level 0 as a background skill, i let their next level 0 add in engineering (or whatever) add up to a level 1. The extra point can make a big difference, and is fairly easy to logic away.
Also, I think the no jump without a sentient, is another relic of the computers of the day. I recall part of the argument for not allowing it was "a living mind was needed to adjust quick enough to the changing situation", or something such. It's pretty laughable by today's computers, never-mind a few thousand years from now. !n 1977 the i286 was still 5 years away.

 

[Vormaerin]

What you mention about splitting skill points, is precisely why allow level 0 skills stack during character creation for specialty skills like engineering. I.E. If they take level 0 as a background skill, i let their next level 0 add in engineering (or whatever) add up to a level 1. The extra point can make a big difference, and is fairly easy to logic away.
Also, I think the no jump without a sentient, is another relic of the computers of the day. I recall part of the argument for not allowing it was "a living mind was needed to adjust quick enough to the changing situation", or something such. It's pretty laughable by today's computers, never-mind a few thousand years from now. !n 1977 the i286 was still 5 years away.

The skills not stacking thing is one of the few "feels bad" things about Traveller chargen. I haven't actually changed it, but maybe I should. Traveller's pretty much the stingiest skill based RPG out there, so its not like it would break anything.

I don't know when the sentients required thing was first introduced, but it wasn't originally in Traveller. Everyone's favorite anomaly, the Annic Nova, jumped without help from pesky sentients. And astrogators weren't required on small ships, as the computer did everything Jump related except say "Engage". The rules didn't allow the pilot to be Virtual Crew'ed out at the time, but I don't recall anything about that sentient mind affecting Jump.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

I assume that Astrogation works like modern astronomy. Computers process the data and do most of the work. The scientists are determining relevance and evaluating anomalous results. And deciding what data the computer should be looking for.

It is my opinion that the reason plotting a Jump is an Easy task is because the computer does everything correctly almost all the time. That's actually the description of the Jump Control Program (And the Generate program that preceded it in earlier editions). Maybe it provides a range of solutions and the astrogator picks one. Or maybe it's just the difference between someone who can read the results of a spreadsheet and someone who can create spreadsheets to get the specific results they want.

I don't remember when exactly in the rules evolution Astrogators suddenly became indispensable. The Type S originally had a crew of 1 (pilot). Now it has a crew of 3 because astrogators and engineers suddenly have to involved in triggering the jump control program properly. Sure, you can have one guy doing all three jobs, but there's a penalty for that now.

Back in the day, Scouts usually had Pilot, Astrogation and Engineer skills (or enough JoT to make it work)

 

[Vormaerin]

Back in the day, Scouts usually had Pilot, Astrogation and Engineer skills (or enough JoT to make it work)

Possibly, but the only skill they definitely had was pilot. But that doesn't change the fact that 100 ton starships didn't need astrogators or engineers on the crew. And 200 ton ships didn't need astrogators. That's why if you look at the write up for the Type S in CT it is "Crew 1", but in Mgt2e it is Crew 3.

 

[Condottiere]

1. If I recall correctly, you only need an engineer if the total sum of engines is thirty five tonnes plus.

2. With astrogation, hull tonnage shouldn't matter, unless hull tonnage has an effect on the calculation(s).

3. Besides below hundred tonnes.

4. How much does autopilot cost?

 

[Vormaerin]

In classic Traveller, astrogation (called Navigation) did not affect your misjump chance. Large ships had navigators because they needed watch standing officers for their bridge crew, not because pushing the execute button on the computer's plot was needed. The pilot was allowed to do that in CT. Small ships were not expected to have around the clock bridge watch.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

1. If I recall correctly, you only need an engineer if the total sum of engines is thirty five tonnes plus.

2. With astrogation, hull tonnage shouldn't matter, unless hull tonnage has an effect on the calculation(s).

3. Besides below hundred tonnes.

4. How much does autopilot cost?

4. Good point. We should rewrite the Jump Programs to better follow the Agent/Intellect w/Expert model to account for it. The existing programs imply a Human in the Loop, and you would need to run an Agent/Intellect in order to automate it and remove negative DM’s. These could be included in 100dton spacecraft (the way programs are included with Core systems), but would be necessary for larger vessels.

Easy fix