Luxuries, Lockers and Medic Expert Systems

[SableWyvern]

Starship Luxuries: +1DM to steward checks for each dt of luxuries, at MCr0.1 each isn't going to work. Allocating 10dt to a passenger liner is going to be chump change for a dramatic pay-off.

Requiring 1dt of luxuries per passenger stateroom in order to gain a bonus would go a long way to rectifying this, and probably makes more sense as well (a vanilla scented bathroom with mood lighting is going to be a lot more pleasant if all 50 passengers don't have to share the same one). Personally, I'd add diminishing returns as well (the second +1DM requires an additional 2dt luxuries/stateroom, the third requires 3dt etc...).

Ship's Locker: I'm not sure about this one. It's an excellent concept, but with vac suits alone, it's value can quickly exceed it's price. I can see disruptive players quickly ruining a scrape-together credits game by pulling all sorts out of things out of the locker, and GMs that want to prevent this strictly enforcing the 5k limit and including only the lowest tech vac suits on a TL-15 ship, which doesn't make a lot of sense. While I may be reacting to an unlikely, worst-case scenario, some more stringent guidelines might not go astray.

Computers (Regular, not ship-board): The Intellect descriptive text uses Medic/4, which is higher than the best listed Expert system. Since it gives the Intellect an effective skill level of 3, I assume this is simply a typo, and should read Medic/3.

AutodocThe TL12 Autodoc has a TL13 Medic/3 expert system, and costs less than half the price of the appropriate Expert software. I assume this is another typo, and the doc should have Medic/2

 

[pasuuli]

Requiring 1dt of luxuries per passenger stateroom in order to gain a bonus would go a long way to rectifying this, and probably makes more sense as well (a vanilla scented bathroom with mood lighting is going to be a lot more pleasant if all 50 passengers don't have to share the same one). Personally, I'd add diminishing returns as well (the second +1DM requires an additional 2dt luxuries/stateroom, the third requires 3dt etc...).

Ship's Locker: I'm not sure about this one. It's an excellent concept, but with vac suits alone, it's value can quickly exceed it's price. I can see disruptive players quickly ruining a scrape-together credits game by pulling all sorts out of things out of the locker, and GMs that want to prevent this strictly enforcing the 5k limit and including only the lowest tech vac suits on a TL-15 ship, which doesn't make a lot of sense. While I may be reacting to an unlikely, worst-case scenario, some more stringent guidelines might not go astray.

I totally agree with these two points.

Luxury allocation per stateroom is clean and makes sense.

Perhaps the ship's locker can come in 1t blocks, with eight vacc suits per ton, at a cost of MCr1 per ton, or something handy like that. Sort of like how emergency low berths work, right?

 

[SableWyvern]

I should point out that I don't think it should be mandated that luxuries are only to be bought in blocks equal to the number of staterooms, but that you need to do so in order to gain bonuses to on-board steward checks. Luxuries could still be bought in smaller amounts, but wouldn't have a direct mechanical effect on play.

 

[pasuuli]

I should point out that I don't think it should be mandated that luxuries are only to be bought in blocks equal to the number of staterooms, but that you need to do so in order to gain bonuses to on-board steward checks. Luxuries could still be bought in smaller amounts, but wouldn't have a direct mechanical effect on play.

I think that's okay, but why muddle up the text if there's no effect to playability? Ah, you said no "direct" effect. Are there indirect effects you're thinking of?

 

[SableWyvern]

I should point out that I don't think it should be mandated that luxuries are only to be bought in blocks equal to the number of staterooms, but that you need to do so in order to gain bonuses to on-board steward checks. Luxuries could still be bought in smaller amounts, but wouldn't have a direct mechanical effect on play.

I think that's okay, but why muddle up the text if there's no effect to playability? Ah, you said no "direct" effect. Are there indirect effects you're thinking of?

I'm thinking about situations where the designers of a private ship may simply desire more space, irrespective of steward DMs, or you want to install an expanded galley, rifle range or work-out area of a pre-determined size. Leaving luxuries open to purchase in 1dt lots allows them to cover a very wide range of spcific applications that don't have their own place in the basic construction rules (and, are possibly too specific to ever justify their own coverage).

 

[pasuuli]

I should point out that I don't think it should be mandated that luxuries are only to be bought in blocks equal to the number of staterooms, but that you need to do so in order to gain bonuses to on-board steward checks. Luxuries could still be bought in smaller amounts, but wouldn't have a direct mechanical effect on play.

I think that's okay, but why muddle up the text if there's no effect to playability? Ah, you said no "direct" effect. Are there indirect effects you're thinking of?

I'm thinking about situations where the designers of a private ship may simply desire more space, irrespective of steward DMs, or you want to install an expanded galley, rifle range or work-out area of a pre-determined size. Leaving luxuries open to purchase in 1dt lots allows them to cover a very wide range of spcific applications that don't have their own place in the basic construction rules (and, are possibly too specific to ever justify their own coverage).

Okay, I see the use, and it's a direct one: it sounds like open space ought to be upgraded in the same proportion that staterooms are upgraded.

 

[SableWyvern]

Okay, I see the use, and it's a direct one: it sounds like open space ought to be upgraded in the same proportion that staterooms are upgraded.

It's direct (with reference to on-board Steward DMs) if these things are being placed there for the benefit of paying passengers.

If it's something for the crew or, more pertinently, for the benefit of the Player Characters, then I can't see any good reason to say, "Well, you're on to your second block of luxuries. That 10m live-fire range is going to require 12dt." An anti-grav bullet trap and some holographic target displays aren't going to take up 8dt on top of the actual shooting area.

Edit: or, are you saying we should have Luxuries, which add to Steward checks, and must be bought in blocks, and then a new category that covers general open space upgrades, and provides no Steward bonuses, but is otherwise purchased just as luxuries are now?

 

[pasuuli]

I'm just casting around for ways to represent it, and to what degree it should be in the rules, etc.

 

[captainjack23]

I noticed this problem, too. The main issue is as stated in the first post. The benfit is directly related to tons comitted NOT tons proportional to ship.
Ten tons on a free trader is 5% of total mass on free trader, .5% on a 2000 ton liner. Both give all stewards a +10.

...per stateroom or by total volume, it doesn't matter, as long as the benefit is based on proportional tonnage.


And as to what it represents, that is a big can of worms best left unopened. Problem is, there are LOTS of ways to add luxury to a ship, some take up more space than others: Bowling alley, onboard theatre, in room holodeck, 24/7 companion service, excellent food, gaming programs, gold plated fixtures, freshers that are large , freshers work and don't have to be shared, freshers that work (for the poor type S passenger) , etc.

Just say "luxury items" and if needed for floorplans, simply treat it as living space : 50% actual space, 50% overhead.

Cap

 

[pasuuli]

Ah, so on a big liner there'll probably be more room to upgrade, and so it will win out on "luxury contests" if determined.

I actually think that works.