Low Berth Maintenance

[lurker]

From Signs & Portents #63

Low Berth Maintenance
The ship’s medic must roll 8+ for each low berth
patient. The DM is –3 for characters with Medic-
0, -2 for characters with Medic-1 and –1 for
characters with Medic-2. If the medic fails this roll,
the low berth patient dies in transit. Characters
with Medic-3 and above do not need to roll: they
automatically succeed in keeping all of their low
passengers alive.

So, if I read this right:

Need to roll 8+
Skill level ... DM ..... Roll
Medic 0 ...... -3 ...... <11 Fail (low berth patient dies)
Medic 1 ...... -2 ...... <10 Fail (low berth patient dies)
Medic 2 ...... -1 ...... <9 Fail (low berth patient dies)
Medic 3 ...... NA ..... NA automatically succeed in keeping low passengers alive

1) Someone with no skill has the same chance as someone with Medic 0?
2) With those odds, wouldn't it be very rare for someone to use low berth without a Medic 3?
3) No associated characteristic is mentioned in S&P. Shouldn't there be one?

 

[katadder]

would assume someone with no medic skill wouldnt even try to bring them round. if they did they would have the additional -3 for being unskilled meaning a -6 to the roll, ie cannot bring someone round successfully

 

[Supplement Four]

If the above is true, then either Alex (the author of the piece) doesn't know what he's talking about and is not well versed in things Traveller, or operating a low berth has gone backwards since the publication of Classic Traveller.

In CT, low berths are highly automated. And, they're fairly dangerous.

ANYBODY, without Medical skill, can revive a person from low berth simply by hitting the green switch and watching the automated berth do its job.

Roll 2D for 5+.
Failure means death of the patient.
+1 DM penalty to the throw if patient END 6-.

If a medic with Medical-2 skill or higher revives the passenger, then the throw is one place higher.

Roll 2D for 4+.
Failure means death of the patient.
+1 DM penalty to the throw if patient END 6-.



Even with a Medic-2 medic attending, commercial low berths have a 92% survival rate--so, really, low berths are for the very poor or the fool-hardy.

 

[rust]

In CT, low berths are highly automated. And, they're fairly dangerous.
ANYBODY, without Medical skill, can revive a person from low berth simply by hitting the green switch and watching the automated berth do its job.

Things changed somewhat after the early days of Classic Traveller.

In Traveller New Era only a person with the Medical (Diagnosis) skill could
revive a low passenger, and even for such a trained medic it was a Diffi-
cult task.

Since TNE is the later "canonical" Traveller version, the author of the ar-
ticle did quite well, I think.

 

[Golan2072]

My house-rules: (non-canonical):

Reviving a cryo-frozen character is a Medic, Passenger's End DM, 1-6 hours, Easy (+4) task using the subject's Endurance DM. One medic could simultaneously work on up to 20 low berths, but the medic has to make a separate task roll for each passenger. A failed revival roll results in 3d6 normal damage rather than death - healthy passengers never die, but might need prompt medical attention in rare and extreme circumstances.

As I've mentioned above, standard cryo-revival takes 1 to 6 hours. However, it is possibly to revive a passenger more quickly using the emergency revival procedure, which is a Medic, Passenger's End DM, 1-6 minutes, Average (+0) task. A failed emergency revival roll causes a roll on the Injury table (TMB p.37); damage is permanent unless treated in a TL10+ hospital (using the costs listed on TMB p.37).

The low berth itself has a hard-wired Medic-0 expert program for the sole purpose of reviving passengers. This could be automatically activated by an override failsafe system installed in each berth, or when the berth's system detects damage to the berth.

 

[Supplement Four]

Since TNE is the later "canonical" Traveller version, the author of the ar-
ticle did quite well, I think.

MGT is based on CT, not TNE, correct?

I mean, there's a whole article on low berths in the DGP's Travellers Digest for MegaTraveller. I didn't mention it above because it's not CT.

 

[GypsyComet]

Since TNE is the later "canonical" Traveller version, the author of the ar-
ticle did quite well, I think.

MGT is based on CT, not TNE, correct?

I mean, there's a whole article on low berths in the DGP's Travellers Digest for MegaTraveller. I didn't mention it above because it's not CT.

Insert grumbles here about how MGT *should* be based on the best fit for that rule, not a particular edition. The targets of this grumble should already know who they are...

 

[Supplement Four]

Insert grumbles here about how MGT *should* be based on the best fit for that rule, not a particular edition.

Fine. Who's to say that CT rule is not better than the TNE rule?

I'd argue that the automation in CT, where any Joe Blow can just slap the green switch, is how the berth's should be.

Healthy low berthers (END 7+) and medical expertise (Medical 2+) provides a 92% chance of success.

That's sounds about "right" to me.

So, imo, Alex's article isn't based on the "best fit for that rule".

 

[GypsyComet]

Just making a general grumble in response to your general comment ("MGT is based on...")

I agree that a survival rate much lower than 92% or so makes the Low Lottery a pretty nasty tradition, and much higher makes Low travel too attractive.

Now, if a high Medic skill concentrating on a single Low Berth could reduce the emergence risk even further, then long-range travel (as seen at the end of the Traveller's Digest story) and long-duration Sleepers (as seen during the Short Nap in TNE) become a lot more viable. As both are common tropes in SF, supporting them as well as the brutality of the mass-transit version works just fine for me.

 

[rust]

Fine. Who's to say that CT rule is not better than the TNE rule?

"Cats eat mice, I don't", as the saying goes over here.

So choose any rule you like, it is your game after all. In my settings I
have finally eliminated the chance of low berth fatalities completely,
because the idea to have even only 1 % of a colony ship's 50,000 fro-
zen passengers die seemed utterly ridiculous to me - no sane colonist
intends to start a new life by digging a mass grave for 500 fellow colo-
nists, at least not in my setting.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I also give a DM based on the TL of the Cryo Unit.

TL 8: No DM (Intro level Technology)
TL 9: +1 DM
TL 10: +2 DM
TL 11: +3 DM
Etc.

By TL 14, survival is automatic even without medical assistance.

I also like Golan2072's house rules of making it a roll on the Injury Table rather than Death. And having an Expert Medical Program as part of the basic operating system (above TL 8 IMTU).

 

[Golan2072]

I also like Golan2072's house rules of making it a roll on the Injury Table rather than Death. And having an Expert Medical Program as part of the basic operating system (above TL 8 IMTU).

Thanks

 

[hdan]

I also give a DM based on the TL of the Cryo Unit.

That's a great idea. It also helps explain why such a deadly device is in common usage in the nominally TL12 OTU. A TL12 low berth gives the same odds as the CT revive roll.

I don't like the Medic DMs as written. The jump from Medic-2 (usually kills his patient) to Medic-3 (always revives) is too steep for me. It almost reads as if two different mechanisms were considered but never really reconciled.

It seems like the perfect (well, most CT-like) results can be had by making the revive roll a 1-6 Hour (8+) task with DM's for Medic, Patient End DM and Berth TL.

 

[hdan]

I also give a DM based on the TL of the Cryo Unit.

That's a great idea. It also helps explain why such a deadly device is in common usage in the nominally TL12 OTU. A TL12 low berth gives the same odds as the CT revive roll.

I don't like the Medic DMs as written. The jump from Medic-2 (usually kills his patient) to Medic-3 (always revives) is too steep for me. It almost reads as if two different mechanisms were considered but never really reconciled.

It seems like the perfect (well, most CT-like) results can be had by making the revive roll a 1-6 Hour (8+) task with DM's for Medic, Patient End DM and Berth TL.

 

[Supplement Four]

Just making a general grumble in response to your general comment ("MGT is based on...")

That wasn't a "general grumble". That's coming from Mongoose's official statement: "It is our aim to halt the fragmentation of the Traveller game, and reintroduce one solid system (based on Classic Traveller), with one source for the official Traveller universe."

You can find that here:
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/n...66&PHPSESSID=afdf078423b011c63e40e5ca192c0eba

So, according to Mongoose, their version of Traveller is based on Classic...in which case, the author of the Medical article, Alex, doesn't know what he's talking about.

He's talking about a different version of Traveller at best.

 

[GypsyComet]

Just making a general grumble in response to your general comment ("MGT is based on...")

That wasn't a "general grumble". That's coming from Mongoose's official statement: "It is our aim to halt the fragmentation of the Traveller game, and reintroduce one solid system (based on Classic Traveller), with one source for the official Traveller universe."

I really don't care where the policy came from. It is, however, MY grumble.

Moving on.

 

[rust]

... official statement: "It is our aim to halt the fragmentation of the Traveller game, and reintroduce one solid system (based on Classic Traveller), with one source for the official Traveller universe."

Modern English is based on Medieval English, D&D 4e is based on D&D 3.0, and so on ... :lol:

 

[EDG]

So, according to Mongoose, their version of Traveller is based on Classic...in which case, the author of the Medical article, Alex, doesn't know what he's talking about.

He's talking about a different version of Traveller at best.

Fact is, it's the rule in MGT. It doesn't matter where it originated, it's what we've got in the game now and if you don't like it, then by all means change it for your own games. But I really see no point in making a big issue about which previous version of Traveller that it's most similar to or based on. MGT isn't Classic Traveller - if you want to play that, then go play CT instead.

 

[EDG]

Actually, SH, I don't play MGT.

So why complain? (and what's with the "SH", is that an abbreviation for an insult there?).

 

[lurker]

The last few posts are not very helpful.

Original poster reminding folks what this thread is about. Hoping people can get back on topic.

From Signs & Portents #63

Low Berth Maintenance
The ship’s medic must roll 8+ for each low berth
patient. The DM is –3 for characters with Medic-
0, -2 for characters with Medic-1 and –1 for
characters with Medic-2. If the medic fails this roll,
the low berth patient dies in transit. Characters
with Medic-3 and above do not need to roll: they
automatically succeed in keeping all of their low
passengers alive.

So, if I read this right:

Need to roll 8+
Skill level ... DM ..... Roll
Medic 0 ...... -3 ...... <11 Fail (low berth patient dies)
Medic 1 ...... -2 ...... <10 Fail (low berth patient dies)
Medic 2 ...... -1 ...... <9 Fail (low berth patient dies)
Medic 3 ...... NA ..... NA automatically succeed in keeping low passengers alive

1) Someone with no skill has the same chance as someone with Medic 0?
2) With those odds, wouldn't it be very rare for someone to use low berth without a Medic 3?
3) No associated characteristic is mentioned in S&P. Shouldn't there be one?

Specifically, wondering if there is anyone official that can confirm whether the S&P section I quoted is correct or a misprint. If correct, am I misinterpreting something? If incorrect, what was it supposed to be?